Technical Stack Selection Skill

Technical Stack Selection

Make technology decisions for every capability your product needs — starting with what you already have, then evaluating what fits, then deciding what to build.

Position in workflow: v0.5 Risk Discovery Interview → v0.5 Technical Stack Selection → v0.6 Architecture Design

Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.3-v0.5:

FEA-* feature entries (from v0.3 Features Value Planning) — Every feature translates to technical capability requirements; derives which capability areas need technology decisions
SCR-* screen entries (from v0.4 Screen Flow Definition) — Screen count and component complexity informs frontend technology needs; DES- components reveal design system constraints
RISK-* risk entries (from v0.5 Risk Discovery Interview) — RISK- constraints directly affect technology choices (RISK-003: latency → choose edge hosting; RISK-004: compliance → choose HIPAA-ready provider)
Existing TECH-* entries (from prior products if brownfield) — If product family exists, inherited technology decisions constrain new choices
Product family information (from user discovery if brownfield) — Shared infrastructure, existing databases, established frameworks narrow the evaluation space

This skill assumes v0.5 Risk Discovery Interview is complete and FEA-/SCR-/RISK- entries provide the constraint foundation.

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

TECH-* entries (technology decisions, decision type + rationale) — Decisions for each capability area with categories (Reuse/Extend/New/Replace), options considered, choice made, and rationale tied to FEA-/RISK- constraints
Risk-to-Technology mapping table — Validation showing every RISK- entry has corresponding TECH- response or explicit acceptance
Technical feasibility artifact — Confidence assessment on whether technology choices support feature MVP-SCOPE and risk mitigations

All TECH- entries should include:

Decision Category: Reuse/Extend/New/Replace/Build/Buy/Integrate/Research
Features Served: FEA-XXX references (every TECH- must serve at least one feature)
Risk Constraints: RISK-XXX references (if any risks constrain this decision)
Rationale: Why this choice; trade-offs considered
Cost Assessment: Current stage cost AND 10x scale cost for Buy decisions (MVP stage: prioritize speed and quality, not optimization)

Example TECH- entry (Buy decision with RISK constraint):

TECH-003: Authentication & Authorization
Decision Category: Buy (managed service)
Features Served: FEA-010 (user auth), FEA-020 (role-based access control) — both in MVP-SCOPE
Risk Constraints: RISK-005 (security: we have no in-house security expertise), RISK-008 (compliance: need SOC2 certification path)

Choice: Clerk (platform auth)
Rationale:
  - Reduces security surface (RISK-005 mitigation: no password storage, no token handling)
  - Provides SOC2 compliance path (RISK-008 mitigation)
  - Includes MFA, passwordless, social login; UI handles all FEA-010 requirements without build
  - 30 day free tier; $25–$500/mo at growth stage (acceptable for MVP runway)

Trade-offs:
  - Plus: Zero auth code to maintain; future-proofs as compliance requirements evolve
  - Minus: Vendor lock-in; customer data in Clerk's tables (acceptable for SMB stage)

Cost:
  - MVP stage (0–10k users): ~$50–200/mo (free tier covers launch)
  - 10x scale (100k users): ~$500–2000/mo (still cheaper than building in-house team)

Product Family Notes: If sibling products exist, Clerk can SSO across them using shared realm config (document in shared infrastructure EPIC)

Alternatives Considered:
  - Firebase Auth: Similar, but tighter Google lock-in and slightly higher cost at scale
  - Auth0: Too expensive for MVP stage; better for enterprise products
  - Build custom: Rejected — RISK-005 says we lack in-house security expertise; not a differentiator

Next Step: If TECH-005 (Research: custom data encryption) decides to build, reconsider Auth0 for compliance sync

Example TECH- entry (Reuse decision from brownfield):

TECH-001: Frontend Framework
Decision Category: Reuse
Features Served: FEA-006 (dashboard), FEA-007 (reports), all screen components — every UI in MVP-SCOPE
Risk Constraints: None (no frontend risk identified)

Existing Asset: React + Next.js (running in sibling product since 2023)
Rationale:
  - Already deployed, proven stable at 50k users
  - Team expertise established; no learning curve
  - Incremental cost: just new feature builds, no framework evaluation/migration risk
  - Shared component library available (DES-001–005 can import existing primitives)

Cost: $0 incremental (infrastructure already paid)

Product Family Notes: Share component library and auth context across products using monorepo structure (document in shared infrastructure EPIC)

Workflow Overview

Discover Existing Assets → Read SOT or interview user for current tech stack
Categorize Layers → Reuse / Extend / New / Replace for each capability
Evaluate Vendor Fit → Check vendor options for New/Replace layers (if constraints exist)
Evaluate Alternatives → Research non-vendor options where gaps exist
Check Product Family → Shared infrastructure, component reuse, cross-product UX
Create TECH- Entries → Write entries using standard or reuse template
Map to Risks → Cross-reference every TECH- entry with RISK- constraints

Decision Categories

| Category | Definition | When to Choose | | --- | --- | --- | | Reuse | Existing asset covers this need as-is | Sibling product or prior work already solves this | | Extend | Existing asset needs augmentation | Asset exists but needs new capabilities for this product | | New | No existing asset, greenfield decision | No prior work; need full evaluation | | Replace | Existing asset doesn't fit, needs new solution | Current tool/service is wrong for this product's requirements | | Build | Create custom solution | Core differentiator, no good alternatives, full control needed | | Buy | Use paid service or managed product | Commodity capability, proven solutions exist, not a differentiator | | Integrate | Connect to external platform or API | Ecosystem play, user expects it, data lives elsewhere | | Research | Need POC before deciding | High uncertainty, multiple viable options, significant commitment |

Evaluation order: Reuse → Vendor-fit → Non-vendor alternatives → Build custom. Default to Buy for everything that isn't a core differentiator.

Decision Framework

| Factor | Favors Reuse/Extend | Favors Buy (Vendor) | Favors Buy (Non-Vendor) | Favors Build | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Existing asset | Already deployed and working | Vendor has a product | Non-vendor product fits better | Nothing fits | | Differentiation | Not relevant | Commodity capability | Commodity capability | Core to value prop | | Vendor alignment | Already committed | Vendor product fits | Vendor has gap or poor fit | No vendor option | | Compliance | Already compliant | Vendor product is compliant | Non-vendor has compliance cert | Must control compliance | | Team expertise | Team already operates it | Managed service, less expertise needed | Team knows this tool | Team has deep knowledge | | Cost | Sunk cost, incremental only | Reasonable vendor pricing | Better price/fit ratio | Long-term cost lower |

Strong Reuse signals:

"We already run this for [sibling product]"
"The team already operates and understands this"
"Switching would cost more than keeping"

Strong Build signals:

"This is why users choose us over competitors"
"No existing solution fits our specific need"
"We need to change this weekly based on learning"

Strong Buy signals:

"Every product needs this"
"Multiple proven solutions exist"
"We'd just be recreating what vendors already built"

Step 1: Discover Existing Assets

Adaptive approach: Check SOT first, then fill gaps with user interview.

If TECH- entries exist in SoT.TECHNICAL_DECISIONS.md: Read existing entries. Present a summary to the user: "I found these existing technology decisions: [list]. Are these still current? Any changes since these were documented?"

If SOT is empty (first time running this skill): Interview the user with these discovery questions:

"Does an existing product family exist with established technology choices?"
- If YES → Load references/brownfield.md for asset discovery workflow
- If NO → Proceed to Step 2 with all layers marked as "New"
"What is the current tech stack?" (ask per area)
- Frontend framework and hosting
- Backend language/framework
- Authentication system
- Database(s)
- Cloud provider and infrastructure
- CI/CD pipeline
- Observability/monitoring tools
"Are there vendor constraints (e.g., must use AWS, Azure, or another preferred platform)?"
- If YES → Load the relevant vendor reference if available
- If NO → Proceed with open evaluation
"Is this a regulated industry (healthcare, finance, government)?"
- If YES → Note compliance requirements as constraints on all technology choices

Discovery Output

Create a summary table:

| Capability Area | Existing Asset | Status | | --- | --- | --- | | [derived from FEA-/RISK-] | [what exists or "None"] | [Reuse / Extend / New / Replace] |

Step 2: Categorize Layers

For each capability required by FEA- and RISK- entries, categorize:

| Category | Criteria | Action | | --- | --- | --- | | Reuse | Existing asset covers the need as-is | Create lightweight TECH- entry (use assets/tech-reuse.md) | | Extend | Existing asset needs augmentation | Create TECH- entry documenting what changes are needed | | New | No existing asset, greenfield decision | Proceed to Steps 3-4 for full evaluation | | Replace | Existing asset is wrong for this product | Proceed to Steps 3-4; document what's being replaced and why |

Derive capability areas from upstream IDs, not a fixed list. Read FEA- entries and ask: "What technical capability does this feature require?" Read RISK- entries and ask: "Does this risk constrain or require a specific technology?"

Do not walk a generic layer checklist. Every capability area should trace to at least one FEA- or RISK- entry.

Reference Technology Layers

For context, here are common technology layers in modern products:

| Layer | Questions to Answer | Common Options | | --- | --- | --- | | Frontend | Framework? Hosting? Mobile/Web? | React, Vue, Next.js, Vercel | | Backend | Language? Framework? Serverless? | Node, Python, Go, AWS Lambda | | Database | SQL/NoSQL? Managed? | PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Supabase | | Auth | Build or buy? SSO? | Auth0, Clerk, Firebase Auth | | Payments | If monetized, processor? | Stripe, Paddle, LemonSqueezy | | Infrastructure | Cloud? Edge? CDN? | AWS, GCP, Vercel, Cloudflare | | Integrations | External services? APIs? | Depends on product | | AI/ML | Models? Services? | OpenAI, Anthropic, local models | | Analytics | Product analytics? Error tracking? | Mixpanel, PostHog, Sentry | | DevOps | CI/CD? Monitoring? | GitHub Actions, Datadog |

Step 3: Evaluate Vendor Fit

For each "New" or "Replace" layer from Step 2:

If your team has vendor constraints (AWS-only, Azure-first, etc.), check if the preferred vendor has a product for this capability
Evaluate fit, compliance status, and cost
If vendor product fits → create TECH- entry with Category: Buy
If vendor product has poor fit or gaps → proceed to Step 4

Evaluation criteria for vendor products (or any Buy option):

| Criterion | Questions | | --- | --- | | Fit | Does the vendor product solve our specific need? Feature gaps? | | Compliance | Does it meet our regulatory requirements (from RISK- entries)? | | Cost | What's the pricing at your current stage? Can you afford it until you reach product-market fit? (Cost optimization comes later, not MVP.) | | Maturity | Production-ready? Documentation quality? Active development? | | Integration | How hard to integrate? Does it work with our existing stack? |

If your team has vendor constraints: Create or load a vendor catalog reference that maps capability areas to vendor products and notes compliance certifications (e.g., HIPAA, SOC2, FedRAMP). Use assets/evaluation-scorecard.md for structured comparison when multiple options exist.

Step 4: Evaluate Alternatives

For layers where vendor options don't exist or have poor fit:

Research 2-3 non-vendor alternatives
Score against the same criteria from Step 3
If a clear winner exists → create TECH- entry with decision
If high uncertainty → create TECH- entry with Category: Research, including evaluation criteria and deadline

For Research items, define:

What must be learned before deciding
How to evaluate (specific metrics, benchmarks, POC scope)
Decision deadline (tied to a WAVE or milestone)

Use assets/evaluation-scorecard.md for structured scoring when comparing options.

Step 5: Check Product Family

Only if sibling products were discovered in Step 1. Skip for solo/greenfield products.

Lightweight checklist:

[ ] Shared infrastructure? Will this product share clusters, databases, or services with siblings?
[ ] Component reuse? Can UI components, API patterns, or operational tooling be shared?
[ ] Cross-product UX? Should customers using multiple products have SSO or unified experience?
[ ] Shared vs. separate instances? For each reused service, should it be the same deployment (separate namespace/realm) or a dedicated instance?

Document answers in relevant TECH- entries under "Product Family Notes."

Step 6: Create TECH- Entries

For each technology decision, create a TECH- entry using the appropriate template:

Reuse/Extend: Use assets/tech-reuse.md (lighter template)
Replace/Build/Buy/Integrate/Research: Use assets/tech.md (standard template)

Mandatory fields for every TECH- entry:

Features Served (FEA-XXX references)
Risk Constraints (RISK-XXX references)
Rationale (why this choice, not just what)
Cost (at current AND 10x scale for Buy decisions)

All TECH- entries are written to SoT.TECHNICAL_DECISIONS.md. The skill produces entries; the SoT stores them.

See references/examples.md for 3 filled examples (Reuse, Buy, Research).

Step 7: Map to Risks

Cross-reference every TECH- entry with RISK- constraints:

For each RISK- entry, verify at least one TECH- entry addresses it
For each TECH- entry, verify it doesn't introduce new unmitigated risks
Document the mapping in a summary table:

| Risk | Score | Technology Response | | --- | --- | --- | | RISK-XXX | [score] | TECH-XXX addresses this by [how] |

If a RISK- entry has no corresponding TECH- response, flag it as an unmitigated risk requiring attention before proceeding to v0.6.

Quality Gates

Before proceeding to v0.6 Architecture Design:

[ ] All capability areas addressed (or explicitly N/A with rationale)
[ ] Every TECH- entry cross-references FEA- and RISK- IDs it serves
[ ] Build decisions justified as core differentiators
[ ] Buy decisions have realistic cost estimates for your current stage (MVP vs. scaling phase)
[ ] Cost decisions prioritize speed-to-market and quality experience for MVP (not premature optimization)
[ ] Research items have clear evaluation criteria and deadlines
[ ] RISK- constraints from v0.5 Risk Discovery reflected in choices
[ ] No vendor lock-in without explicit acknowledgment
[ ] All TECH- entries written to SoT.TECHNICAL_DECISIONS.md
[ ] Existing assets cataloged before new evaluations (brownfield check)

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

| Pattern | Signal | Fix | | --- | --- | --- | | Resume-driven development | "Let's use [hot new tech]" | Choose boring technology for non-differentiators | | Evaluate everything | Scoring auth when Keycloak already works | Categorize Reuse/Extend/New/Replace first | | Greenfield assumption | "Pick a frontend framework" when React exists | Discover existing assets before evaluating | | Build everything | No Buy/Integrate decisions | Challenge: is this really a differentiator? | | Buy everything | No Build decisions | Some things must be custom for your moat | | Analysis paralysis | Research everything | Time-box research; decide with 70% confidence | | Ignoring constraints | Tech choice conflicts with RISK- | Review RISK- entries before finalizing | | Premature cost optimization | "We must use the cheapest database" for MVP | Optimize for speed-to-market and quality first. Reduce costs after product-market fit. | | Cost blindness | No cost estimates on Buy decisions | Every TECH- needs realistic cost for your stage | | Over-engineering for scale | "We need Kubernetes for scale" | Design for 10x current needs, not 1000x unknown scale | | Orphan TECH- entry | TECH-003 references no FEA- or RISK- | Mandatory cross-reference in template | | SoT contamination | Decision rationale essays in SoT template | Methodology in skill; structure in SoT |

Bundled Resources

references/brownfield.md — Existing product family discovery workflow. Load when user confirms existing products share infrastructure.
references/examples.md — Completed TECH- entry examples (Reuse, Buy, Research). Load when producing TECH- entries to match format and depth.
assets/tech.md — Standard TECH- entry template for Replace/Build/Buy/Integrate/Research.
assets/tech-reuse.md — Lighter TECH- entry template for Reuse/Extend decisions.
assets/evaluation-scorecard.md — Weighted scorecard for comparing Buy/Integrate options.

Downstream Connections

| Consumer | What It Uses | Example | | --- | --- | --- | | v0.6 Architecture Design | TECH- selections define the system | TECH-001 → ARC-001 frontend architecture | | v0.6 Technical Specification | TECH- informs API design | TECH-003 → API-XXX data model constraints | | v0.7 Build Execution | TECH- Research items become spikes | TECH-005 (Research) → EPIC task | | Hiring/Resourcing | TECH- Build items define skills needed | TECH-010 (custom ML) → need ML engineer |

Handoff

TECH- entries are complete when all quality gates pass. Next stage: v0.6 Architecture Design (downstream ownership). The downstream consumer should be able to start architecture work using only TECH- entries + upstream SoT files — no re-research needed.

Agent Skills: Technical Stack Selection

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files