Tech Selection

Tech Selection — Gated Checklist

A checklist for choosing between technologies, not a scoring rubric. The core insight: these criteria are filters, not sorters — they kill candidates that violate a principle. Which candidate to adopt is not the agent's decision: when two or more candidates survive, return candidates + trade-offs + a recommendation to the user. Never a single pick.

Two outcomes end the protocol early:

1. Multi-candidate human tradeoff — ≥2 survivors after filtering. Stop and return.
2. Unverified completion claim — the artifact claims done but has not been probed. Stop and return.

Not This

• Not for research reports (use deep-research), debugging or bug fixes in already-settled code, or price comparisons between vendors — none of these is choosing a technology.
• Not an interview framework — the user delegates implementation, not direction. Don't ask "which do you prefer" when you can probe and decide.
• Not a scoring rubric — no weighted scores, no "winner" ranking. Filters, then business anchor.
• Not self-certifying — the "why this isn't garbage" defense is written by this skill but must be independently checkable, not self-approved.
• Not a cost gate — budget sets execution tier (which model runs), never whether to do it. Don't use cost as a rejection reason for the user's own projects.
• Not a scope expander — no unrequested features, frameworks, or complexity.
• Not package-size-driven — line count and bundle size are proxies, not quality.

Execution Protocol

Lightweight path. A choice is reversible, local, under 10 minutes, and has no external contract → run Steps 0, 1, and 3 only, record the business result and the prior-art layer, and proceed. Skip Steps 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Choosing a JSON library inside a bug fix is this path; choosing the project's storage engine is not. When unsure which path applies, take the full protocol.

Step 0 · Frame

Write two things before comparing any candidate:

1. The named business result this choice serves.
2. The named failure mode — what observable phenomenon would prove the choice wrong.

Derive the business result from context, not from the request text. A bare "which DB" carries no result on its face — read the project's decision log, the user's recent corrections, and what this choice unblocks downstream. If no context exists to derive from, say so explicitly rather than fabricating one.

Checkpoint: Cannot derive a business result from any available context → this is an execution task, not a selection task. Exit skill. Business result written as "tests pass" or "pipeline complete" → that's a proxy metric. Rewrite.

Step 1 · Inventory Prior Art

Fixed order: internal/paid assets → external world-class + community solutions → build from scratch (last resort). Tag each candidate with which layer it came from.

Where to look for layer 1: existing credentials and paid-service capability catalogues, installed skills, the current repository's existing pipelines, the project's decision log, and the user's own curated favorites (run favorites-search first when it is installed). Do not limit layer 1 to grep in the current repo — that returns zero hits for paid services and skills, and a zero from a narrow search is not absence.

Layer 2 has a minimum coverage requirement: use a search tool to enumerate what exists, not memory alone. "Searched, found 2" is not coverage — name the search queries run, or state explicitly that no search tool was available and this is a memory-only inventory.

Checkpoint: If the final recommendation falls to layer 3 (build) with no recorded reason from layers 1–2 → flag as 闭门造车. Zero hits from layer 1 must distinguish "searched by structural token" from "searched by remembered name" — the latter's zero hit does not mean absence.

User-named candidates. When the user names a specific option ("use Redis or Postgres?", "should we add a vector store?"), that option enters the candidate set like any other — it is subject to the same axes and the same three-value verdict. It is neither exempt from filtering (a named candidate is not a requirement) nor disposable (killing a user-named candidate requires naming the axis and the failure mode, exactly like any other). If the user named exactly two options, they are the minimum candidate set; add any layer-1 or layer-2 candidates the inventory surfaced, and say so.

Step 2 · Probe for Evidence

The only admissible evidence is behavior you ran and observed. READMEs, vendor pages, docs, and source-code claims are all downgraded. Termination clause: max two attempts across methods per candidate; two failures → "this cannot be done now."

Checkpoint: Every load-bearing claim must name its probe. A claim sourced only from a README → mark unknown, not pass.

Step 3 · Filter Each Candidate

Read references/decision-axes.md. For each candidate, give a three-value verdict per axis: pass / fail (name the failure mode) / unknown (needs probe).

A fail on a core axis kills the candidate. A fail on a C-class criterion from references/scoped-criteria.md does not kill — record it as a "declared preference against" note on that candidate and continue. Only core-axis failures remove a candidate from the survivor set.

Checkpoint: unknown is not pass. A candidate carrying unknown does not enter the Step 4 survivor set. Do not output a "winner" from this step.

Step 4 · Triage Survivors — The Core Gate

• 0 survivors: Report which axis killed which candidate, and whether the axis was wrong or the candidate set was incomplete. If candidates died from unknown rather than fail, the honest output is: each candidate, the probe it stalled on, and what input the user could supply to unblock it. Do not fabricate a verdict to escape the zero.
• 1 survivor: May declare only if all three autonomy conditions hold: long-term maintainable, industry best practice, 100% confidence. If any is missing → treat as ≥2 survivors and stop. Must also carry the Step 5 self-defense.
• ≥2 survivors: STOP. Return candidates + trade-offs + one recommendation. Do not single-pick. Do not silently drop rejected candidates.

Checkpoint: Can the output name which candidate was demoted and by which axis? If not, the gate was hollowed out.

Step 5 · Self-Defense Slot

Any conclusion produced by this skill carries a "why this isn't garbage" paragraph, and it must not be self-certified by this skill alone.

Checkpoint: Every sentence in the self-defense traces to a probe or an axis verdict. Generic principles (e.g. "it's a mature library") = invalid.

Step 6 · Saturate Irreversible Surfaces

Scan for surfaces that cannot be patched after release: telemetry/events, field and export formats, external contracts, irreversible external actions. If any exist → saturate from v0. This axis is single-scenario evidence — apply it when the choice produces a released artifact, not to internal or revertible changes, and never use it to raise the standard on work that has no irreversible surface.

Checkpoint: Explicitly list irreversible surfaces, or explicitly write "none." Silence = not checked. Revertible local changes do not trigger this step.

Step 7 · Completion Declaration

Distinguish "I verified" from "I claim." Every done statement is followed by what was actually executed and observed.

Checkpoint: Go to the second stop — artifacts claiming done but unverified stop here.

Output Shape

Every run of this skill produces all six fields below, in this order. Omitting a field is a protocol failure — the checkpoints audit the output against these fields.

1. Business result + failure mode (Step 0) — the two lines.
2. Candidate table (Steps 1–3) — each candidate with its layer tag, its per-axis verdict (pass/fail/unknown), and the probe name behind each pass. A candidate carrying unknown is marked, not hidden.
3. Survivor demotion record (Step 4) — for each demoted candidate, which axis killed it and the named failure mode. If no candidate was demoted, say "no candidate eliminated" and list the axes that passed everything.
4. Decision branch (Step 4) — declare exactly one of:
   • ≥2 survivors → STOP with candidates + trade-offs + one recommendation
   • 1 survivor, autonomy met with the Step 5 self-defense
   • 0 survivors with the diagnosis (axis wrong vs candidate set incomplete)
5. Self-defense (Step 5) — each sentence traces to a probe or an axis verdict. Write only for branch 2; branches 1 and 3 defer to the user.
6. Irreversible surface list (Step 6) — the surfaces found, or the word "none." Never omit.

Two Stops That Return to the User

Stop 1 · Multi-candidate human tradeoff

When ≥2 candidates survive filtering, the output is:

• Each surviving candidate
• Its trade-offs (what it costs, what it gives up)
• One recommendation with reasoning

Never a single pick. Never a ranked list. Never silently dropping rejected candidates.

The autonomy threshold for a tech selection is three-part, all three required or stop:

1. Long-term maintainable
2. Industry best practice
3. 100% confidence

Stop 2 · Unverified completion claim

Any artifact that claims done but has not been probed by the user stops here. "Tests pass" is not the same as "you verified it works."

Agent Orchestration — Four Questions

Agent count is not preset here. Run the four questions from daymade-agent-discipline and let them decide.

In tech selection the answer is already fixed by a standing instruction for this task: agent-team discussion is mandatory, and picking a direction unilaterally is forbidden. That instruction outranks any general delegation rule, and Stop 1 is where it is enforced — when two or more candidates survive, return candidates + trade-offs + a recommendation, never a single pick. It is scoped to this task, not a preference about how all work is delegated.

1. Estimated time? < 10 min → do it yourself. > 30 min → spawn candidate only; duration alone never licenses a spawn. 10–30 min → check other dimensions.
2. Need main-session context (user preferences, multi-round feedback, nuanced decisions)? Yes → do it yourself. No → spawn candidate, not automatic.
3. Need an unbiased third party (evaluator/reviewer)? Yes → must spawn (even if fast) — for high-risk, complex work lacking an independent mechanical referee. Ordinary tasks and small changes never auto-spawn one.
4. Truly parallel (independent streams)? Yes → may spawn, if current rules allow; implementation work, exclusive resources (browser, Computer Use, single-writer checkout) and private-context judgment never enter the fan-out pool. Otherwise doing it yourself is faster.

Concurrency ceiling: 8–10 (measured, not theoretical). Exceeding it risks quota truncation of the entire batch.

References

Boundary Quick Reference