tech-divergence
Assists in making architectural decisions by scoring implementation options across 8 risk dimensions and triggering human reviews for significant changes.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/tech-divergence && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/5101" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/tech-divergence && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/tech-divergence
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Evaluate technical options with scoring matrix, trigger Gate 4 for significant decisionsKey capabilities
- →Evaluates architecture against 8 dimensions
- →Scores implementation patterns for risk
- →Queries Notion for existing patterns
- →Integrates with Context7 for library assessment
- →Triggers human-in-the-loop Gate 4 review
How it works
Applies a scoring matrix to 8 specific technical criteria; scores of 4 or higher programmatically trigger a required human approval process.
Inputs & outputs
When to use tech-divergence
- →Evaluating new technical patterns
- →Assessing risk of cross-domain impacts
- →Deciding between library implementations
- →Determining if a change requires human approval
About this skill
Tech Divergence Skill
Evaluate technical implementation options using an 8-dimension scoring matrix. Low scores auto-proceed; high scores (>= 4) trigger Gate 4 for human decision.
When to Use
- During Plan Mode Phase 2 (Technical Diverge)
- Before committing to a specific architecture or pattern
- When multiple valid implementation approaches exist
Scoring Matrix (8 Dimensions)
Each dimension scores 0 (auto-proceed) or 1 (adds to checkpoint score):
| Dimension | 0 (Low Risk) | 1 (Checkpoint) |
|---|---|---|
| Pattern | Exists in codebase | New pattern required |
| Scope | Single domain | Cross-domain impact |
| Data Model | Add field to existing | New entity/table |
| Dependencies | Use existing libs | New dependency |
| API Surface | Internal only | Public/breaking change |
| Reversibility | Easy to undo | Requires migration |
| Security | Non-sensitive data | Auth/permissions |
| Performance | Simple CRUD | Cache/queue/optimization |
Phase 1: Gather Context
1.1 Query Pattern Library (Notion)
Check if similar patterns exist:
API-query-database:
database_id: "[PATTERN_LIBRARY_DB_ID]"
filter:
property: "Domain"
select:
equals: "[current domain]"
1.2 Search Codebase
SemanticSearch: "How is [similar feature] implemented?"
Grep: "[pattern name]" in relevant directories
1.3 Query Context7 (External Libraries)
If new libraries are being considered:
Context7 MCP:
1. resolve-library-id: libraryName = "[library]"
2. get-library-docs: topic = "best practices", mode = "info"
Phase 2: Score Each Dimension
For each of the 8 dimensions, evaluate and score:
## Technical Divergence Score
| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Pattern | 0/1 | [Exists/New] |
| Scope | 0/1 | [Single/Cross-domain] |
| Data Model | 0/1 | [Field/Entity] |
| Dependencies | 0/1 | [Existing/New] |
| API Surface | 0/1 | [Internal/Public] |
| Reversibility | 0/1 | [Easy/Migration] |
| Security | 0/1 | [Non-sensitive/Auth] |
| Performance | 0/1 | [CRUD/Optimization] |
| **TOTAL** | [0-8] | |
Phase 3: Determine Path
If Score < 4: Auto-Proceed
## Technical Approach: Auto-Proceed
**Score:** [N]/8 (below threshold)
**Selected Approach:** [Describe the approach]
**Rationale:**
- Pattern exists: [reference]
- Low cross-domain impact
- Easy to reverse if needed
Proceeding to Commit Plan...
If Score >= 4: Gate 4 (Human Checkpoint)
## Gate 4: Technical Approach Selection
**Score:** [N]/8 (threshold reached)
**Why human input needed:**
- [List dimensions that scored 1]
### Option A: [Name] (Conservative)
**Approach:** [Description]
**Effort:** S
**Risk:** Low
**Trade-off:** [What you give up]
### Option B: [Name] (Balanced)
**Approach:** [Description]
**Effort:** M
**Risk:** Medium
**Trade-off:** [What you give up]
### Option C: [Name] (Bold)
**Approach:** [Description]
**Effort:** L
**Risk:** Higher
**Trade-off:** [What you give up]
---
**Which approach would you like to proceed with?** (A / B / C)
*If you reject an option, I'll invoke decision-capture to record why.*
Phase 4: Record Decision
After Gate 4 selection:
- If option rejected, invoke
decision-captureskill - Record selected approach in context for Commit Plan
- Update Pattern Library if new pattern established
Integration with Plan Mode
This skill is invoked during Plan Mode Phase 2:
Plan Mode Flow:
Phase 1: APPETITE →
Phase 2: TECHNICAL DIVERGE (this skill) →
If score < 4: Auto-proceed
If score >= 4: Gate 4 → Human selects
Phase 3: COMMIT PLAN
MCP Tools Used
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Notion MCP | Query Pattern Library database |
| Context7 MCP | Get library best practices |
| SemanticSearch | Find existing codebase patterns |
| Grep | Search for specific implementations |
Example Scoring
Low Score Example (Auto-Proceed)
Feature: Add a new column to existing table
| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Pattern | 0 | Column additions done before |
| Scope | 0 | Single domain (tables) |
| Data Model | 0 | Adding field, not entity |
| Dependencies | 0 | Using existing libs |
| API Surface | 0 | Internal only |
| Reversibility | 0 | Easy migration |
| Security | 0 | Non-sensitive data |
| Performance | 0 | Simple CRUD |
| TOTAL | 0 | Auto-proceed |
High Score Example (Gate 4)
Feature: Add real-time collaboration
| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Pattern | 1 | No WebSocket patterns yet |
| Scope | 1 | Affects auth, tables, workflows |
| Data Model | 1 | New presence entity |
| Dependencies | 1 | Need socket.io |
| API Surface | 1 | New WS endpoints |
| Reversibility | 1 | Would need cleanup migration |
| Security | 1 | User session handling |
| Performance | 1 | Needs connection pooling |
| TOTAL | 8 | Gate 4 required |
Invocation
Invoked automatically by Plan Mode Phase 2, or manually with "use tech-divergence skill".
When not to use it
- →For minor bug fixes or trivial code changes
- →When the implementation path is already fixed
Prerequisites
Limitations
- →Scoring matrix is rigid and may not cover all niche cases
- →Relies on the user accurately completing the 8-dimension audit
How it compares
Standardizes decision-making via a quantitative risk matrix instead of relying on subjective assessment.
Compared to similar skills
tech-divergence side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tech-divergence (this skill) | 1 | 7mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| openspec-explore | 4 | 6mo | Review | Beginner |
| thought-patterns | 6 | 8mo | No flags | Advanced |
| gathering-requirements | 3 | 8mo | No flags | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by WellApp-ai
View all by WellApp-ai →You might also like
openspec-explore
studyzy
进入探索模式 - 一个用于探索想法、调查问题和澄清需求的思考伙伴。当用户想要在进行更改之前或期间深入思考某事时使用。
thought-patterns
markpitt
Orchestrates comprehensive cognitive thinking patterns including sequential, systems, lateral, divergent/convergent, abductive, analogical, first-principles, double-loop learning, gestalt, metacognitive, and neurodivergent patterns (ADHD hyperfocus, autistic detail-orientation, dyslexic spatial reasoning). Analyzes tasks to select optimal pattern(s), chains multiple patterns when needed, and validates outputs before responding. Use for complex problem-solving, creative tasks, analytical challenges, or when diverse cognitive approaches enhance solution quality.
gathering-requirements
CaptainCrouton89
Systematically clarify user needs, preferences, and constraints before planning or implementation. Classifies work type, investigates existing systems, discovers edge cases and integration points, resolves assumptions, and creates detailed specifications. Use when building features, enhancements, or integrations where requirements need clarification.
the-fool
Jeffallan
Use when challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.
decision-critic
solatis
Invoke IMMEDIATELY via python script to stress-test decisions and reasoning. Do NOT analyze first - the script orchestrates the critique workflow.
moai-foundation-philosopher
modu-ai
Strategic thinking framework integrating First Principles Analysis, Stanford Design Thinking, and MIT Systems Engineering for deeper problem-solving and decision-making