/options

allowed-tools: Task, Read, Bash(rg:*), Bash(fd:*), Bash(gdate:*), Bash(jq:*), Bash(bat:*)
name: "Options"
description: "Strategic decision analysis framework with multi-approach evaluation and recommendation scoring"
author: "wcygan"
tags: ["workflow","view"]
version: "1.0.0"
created_at: "2025-07-14T00:00:00Z"
updated_at: "2025-07-14T00:00:00Z"

Context

• Session ID: !`gdate +%s%N 2>/dev/null || date +%s%N 2>/dev/null || echo "$(date +%s)$(jot -r 1 100000 999999 2>/dev/null || shuf -i 100000-999999 -n 1 2>/dev/null || echo $RANDOM$RANDOM)"`
• Analysis target: $ARGUMENTS
• Current project context: !`pwd`
• Available resources: !`eza -la . 2>/dev/null | head -5 || fd . -d 1 | head -5`
• Technology stack: !`fd "(package\.json|Cargo\.toml|go\.mod|deno\.json|pom\.xml)" . -d 2 | head -3 || echo "No build files detected"`

Your Task

STEP 1: Initialize strategic analysis session

• CREATE session state file: `/tmp/options-analysis-$SESSION_ID.json`
• PARSE problem statement from $ARGUMENTS
• IDENTIFY analysis scope and complexity level
• DETERMINE whether to use parallel sub-agent approach for comprehensive evaluation

# Initialize analysis session state
echo '{
  "sessionId": "'$SESSION_ID'",
  "problemStatement": "'$ARGUMENTS'",
  "analysisType": "auto-detect",
  "optionsGenerated": 0,
  "recommendationMatrix": []
}' > /tmp/options-analysis-$SESSION_ID.json

STEP 2: Multi-dimensional problem analysis and scope determination

TRY:

IF problem_complexity == "high" OR analysis_scope == "architectural":

LAUNCH parallel sub-agents for comprehensive option exploration:

• **Agent 1: Technical Feasibility Analysis**: Evaluate technical constraints, dependencies, and implementation challenges
• Focus: Technology stack compatibility, performance implications, scalability considerations
• Output: Technical feasibility matrix with risk assessment

• **Agent 2: Resource & Timeline Analysis**: Assess effort, cost, and timeline implications for each approach
• Focus: Development effort, team expertise, timeline constraints, budget considerations
• Output: Resource allocation matrix with effort estimates

• **Agent 3: Risk Assessment**: Identify potential risks, failure modes, and mitigation strategies
• Focus: Technical risks, business risks, operational risks, security implications
• Output: Risk matrix with mitigation strategies

• **Agent 4: Strategic Alignment**: Evaluate alignment with business goals, architectural principles, and long-term vision
• Focus: Strategic fit, maintainability, extensibility, team capabilities
• Output: Strategic alignment scoring with justification

ELSE:

EXECUTE streamlined single-agent analysis for focused problems

echo "🎯 Executing focused analysis for well-defined problem scope"

STEP 3: Systematic option generation and evaluation framework

**Structured Analysis Framework:**

FOR EACH viable approach (aim for 3-5 options):

Option [N]: [Descriptive Name]

**Overview**: Brief description of the approach with architectural context

**Technical Analysis**:

• Implementation complexity and dependencies
• Performance implications and scalability profile
• Integration points and compatibility requirements
• Security considerations and compliance impacts

**Resource Analysis**:

• **Complexity**: Low/Medium/High with justification
• **Time Estimate**: Realistic timeline (hours/days/weeks/months)
• **Team Requirements**: Solo / Small (2-3) / Medium (4-6) / Large (7+) team
• **Skill Requirements**: Existing vs. new expertise needed
• **Maintenance Overhead**: Ongoing operational requirements

**Strategic Evaluation**:

• **Benefits**: 3-5 key advantages with business impact
• **Trade-offs**: 2-4 limitations or risks with mitigation strategies
• **Long-term Viability**: Maintainability, extensibility, and evolution path
• **Best For**: Specific scenarios where this approach excels

STEP 4: Intelligent recommendation synthesis

**Comparative Analysis Matrix:**

# Generate structured comparison data
echo "Creating recommendation matrix with weighted scoring..."

| Approach | Complexity | Timeline | Risk Level | Scalability | Maintainability | Strategic Fit | Weighted Score | | -------- | ---------- | -------- | ---------- | ----------- | --------------- | ------------- | -------------- | | Option 1 | Low (3) | 2d (4) | Low (4) | Medium (3) | High (4) | High (4) | 3.6/5.0 | | Option 2 | High (1) | 2w (2) | Med (3) | High (4) | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | 2.7/5.0 | | Option 3 | Med (2) | 1w (3) | Low (4) | High (4) | High (4) | High (4) | 3.5/5.0 |

**Decision Framework:**

1. **Primary Recommendation**: State top choice with clear rationale

• Why this option best balances all factors
• Specific advantages for current context
• Risk mitigation strategies

2. **Fallback Strategy**: Alternative if primary approach encounters blockers

• Clear triggers for switching approaches
• Transition strategy and sunk cost considerations

3. **Critical Decision Points**: Key moments requiring stakeholder input

• Technical validation checkpoints
• Resource allocation decisions
• Timeline confirmation gates

STEP 5: Actionable implementation roadmap

**Immediate Next Steps (0-2 weeks):**

• [ ] Specific validation tasks for chosen approach
• [ ] Resource allocation and team assignment
• [ ] Risk mitigation setup
• [ ] Technical proof-of-concept definition

**Medium-term Milestones (2-8 weeks):**

• [ ] Implementation phases with deliverables
• [ ] Integration testing and validation
• [ ] Performance benchmarking
• [ ] Documentation and knowledge transfer

**Long-term Considerations (2+ months):**

• [ ] Maintenance strategy and operational procedures
• [ ] Scaling plan and capacity requirements
• [ ] Evolution roadmap and future enhancements

CATCH (analysis_failed):

• LOG error details to session state
• PROVIDE simplif