Fähigkeiten arch-tech-evaluation

📦

arch-tech-evaluation

Name: arch-tech-evaluation
Author: zl2023github

Inhaltsrevision r2 Sicher ⚙️ Externe Befehle

Evaluate Technology Choices with Clear Tradeoffs

Technology choices often hide tradeoffs across performance, cost, reliability, operations, and team readiness. This skill compares candidates, recommends an option, and defines proof-of-concept checks.

Unterstützt: Claude Codex Code(CC)

📊 74 Angemessen

Maintain this Skill? Claim it 📊 74 Angemessen

Mit meinem Agent installieren

Kopieren Sie diese Anfrage in Ihren Agent. Sie enthält die maßgebliche Skill-Seite und das Manifest.

Agent-Anfrage

Review the Skillstore skill "arch-tech-evaluation" from https://skillstore.io/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.

Ihr Agent sollte weiterhin seinen Plan anzeigen und alle von der Sicherheitsrichtlinie verlangten Bestätigungen anfordern.

Agent-lesbare Ressourcen

Verwenden Sie diese Links, wenn ein KI-Agent, Crawler oder Skript sauberen Kontext benötigt, statt die vollständige Seite zu lesen.

Markdown-Detailseite GET /skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation.md Signiertes manifest GET /api/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/manifest Signiertes lockfile GET /api/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/lockfile

Testen

„arch-tech-evaluation“ wird verwendet. Compare Kafka and RabbitMQ for order events at 100,000 messages per second.

Erwartetes Ergebnis:

**Recommendation: Kafka.** It better matches sustained throughput and retention needs. Validate p99 latency, broker recovery, consumer rebalancing, and operational capacity in a proof of concept.

„arch-tech-evaluation“ wird verwendet. Choose between two web frameworks for a small team maintaining a business application.

Erwartetes Ergebnis:

**Recommendation: Framework A.** Its team familiarity and simpler operations outweigh Framework B's performance advantage. Reassess when traffic or real-time requirements increase.

„arch-tech-evaluation“ wird verwendet. Create a proof-of-concept plan and ADR for selecting a distributed database.

Erwartetes Ergebnis:

The plan measures latency, failover, consistency, recovery, and cost under representative workloads. The ADR records weighted scores, unresolved risks, and the approval criteria.

Sicherheitsaudit

Sicher

v4 • 24.7.2026 Versionsbericht öffnen

All four static findings are false positives. The command alerts identify Markdown fences, while the entropy alerts identify readable Chinese Markdown rather than encoded payloads. No prompt injection, data exfiltration, or executable behavior was found.

Gescannte Dateien

179

Analysierte Zeilen

Prüfelemente

Falschmeldungen ignoriert

Risikofaktoren

⚙️ Externe Befehle (2)

SKILL.md:40-72 SKILL.md:72-76

Das letzte abgeschlossene statische und semantische Audit erkannte keine bestätigten Sicherheitsbefunde. Dies beweist nicht, dass der Skill keine Nebenwirkungen hat.

Geprüft von: codex Audit-Verlauf anzeigen →

Diesen Bericht teilen & zitieren

Teile den versionierten Bewertungsbericht, das neutrale Badge, die Einbettungskarte und Zitate. Skillstore berichtet Nachweise, ohne zu entscheiden, ob dieser Skill sicher ist.

Versionsbericht öffnen

Berichtslink kopieren

https://skillstore.io/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/audits/4?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Markdown-Badge

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

HTML-Badge

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Einbettungskarte

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>

Wissenschaftliche Zitate (APA · BibTeX · CFF)

APA-Zitat

zl2023github. (2026). arch-tech-evaluation security audit report (audit version 4) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/audits/4

BibTeX-Zitat

@techreport{zl2023github-zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation-2026,
  author = {zl2023github},
  title = {arch-tech-evaluation security audit report (audit version 4)},
  institution = {Skillstore},
  year = {2026},
  number = {4},
  url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/audits/4},
  note = {Author version unspecified}
}

CITATION.cff

cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "arch-tech-evaluation security audit report (audit version 4)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
  - name: "zl2023github"
date-released: "2026-07-24"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation/audits/4"
identifiers:
  - type: other
    value: "skillstore:zl2023github-arch-tech-evaluation:audit:4"
    description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Skillstore-Score

Warum dieser Score Evidenzvertrauen: Mittel

Architektur

Wartbarkeit

Inhalt

Gemeinschaft

Spezifikationskonformität

Was Sie erstellen können

Select Messaging Infrastructure

Compare message brokers against throughput, latency, durability, recovery, ecosystem, and operating requirements.

Choose an Application Framework

Evaluate frameworks against delivery needs, team experience, maintenance effort, security, and total cost.

Plan a Defensible Decision

Define proof-of-concept tests and record the final choice, evidence, risks, and rejected alternatives.

Diese Prompts ausprobieren

Compare Two Options

Compare [option A] and [option B] for [use case]. Focus on functionality, performance, cost, operations, and learning curve. Recommend one option.

Evaluate Against Constraints

Evaluate [candidates] for [system]. Use these constraints: [scale], [latency], [availability], [consistency], [budget], and [team experience]. Create a weighted comparison and identify missing information.

Design a Proof of Concept

Design a proof of concept for choosing among [candidates]. Define hypotheses, workloads, metrics, pass criteria, failure tests, effort, and decision rules.

Produce an Architecture Decision

Assess [candidates] for [architecture]. Build a weighted scorecard, sensitivity analysis, risk register, migration plan, and final recommendation. Draft an ADR that records rejected alternatives and evidence gaps.

Bewährte Praktiken

Provide measurable workload, latency, availability, consistency, retention, budget, and compliance constraints.
Adjust dimension weights with stakeholders before scoring candidates.
Validate decisive assumptions with benchmarks, documentation, and a time-boxed proof of concept.

Vermeiden

Do not select a technology from popularity or star counts alone.
Do not treat default scores as universal facts across teams and workloads.
Do not finalize a recommendation while critical requirements or evidence remain unknown.

Häufig gestellte Fragen

What information should I provide?

Provide the use case, candidate technologies, scale, reliability targets, budget, timeline, team experience, existing stack, and compliance constraints.

Can it evaluate any technology category?

Yes. The general workflow applies broadly, but evaluation dimensions and weights should match the specific technology category.

Does it perform live benchmarks?

No. It designs benchmark and proof-of-concept plans, but users must run the tests and supply measured results.

How are recommendations calculated?

Candidates are compared across weighted dimensions. The final recommendation also considers tradeoffs, risks, missing evidence, and organizational constraints.

Can it create an architecture decision record?

Yes. It can format the selected option, decision context, evidence, consequences, risks, and rejected alternatives as an ADR.

How should I handle outdated facts?

Verify product versions, pricing, licenses, security history, and community activity with current primary sources before approving the decision.