technology-radar
A decision-making framework for CTOs covering technology selection, build-vs-buy analysis, and engineering team health metrics.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/technology-radar && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/19425" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/technology-radar && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/technology-radar
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.
CTO methodology for technology evaluation, architecture governance, build-vs-buy decisions, engineering metrics, technical debt quantification, and innovation pipeline management. Covers technology radar framework (Adopt/Trial/Assess/Hold), TCO analysis, architecture review boards, RFC processes, DORA/SPACE/DevEx metrics, debt interest calculation, and POC-to-production readiness criteria.Key capabilities
- →Evaluate technology stacks using Adopt/Trial/Assess/Hold quadrants
- →Perform build-vs-buy analysis with TCO calculations
- →Design architecture governance processes and RFC workflows
- →Track engineering performance using DORA, SPACE, and DevEx metrics
- →Quantify technical debt with principal and interest estimation
- →Manage innovation pipelines with POC-to-production readiness gates
How it works
The skill applies a CTO-level methodology to evaluate technology and engineering processes. It uses structured frameworks to balance delivery velocity with long-term platform health.
Inputs & outputs
When to use technology-radar
- →Perform build-vs-buy analysis
- →Establish architecture review processes
- →Calculate and track technical debt
- →Evaluate engineering performance metrics
About this skill
Technology Radar
CTO methodology for making technology decisions, governing architecture, measuring engineering effectiveness, managing technical debt, and operating an innovation pipeline. These frameworks help a CTO balance short-term delivery velocity with long-term platform health.
Domain Model
| Domain | Covers | Artifact |
|---|---|---|
| Technology Radar | Adopt/Trial/Assess/Hold quadrants, tool selection criteria, deprecation policy | Technology radar document |
| Build vs Buy | TCO analysis, decision matrices, vendor evaluation, integration cost | Build-vs-buy recommendation |
| Architecture Governance | Standards, review boards, RFC process, design reviews | ADRs, RFC documents, governance charter |
| Engineering Metrics | DORA (deploy frequency, lead time, MTTR, change failure rate), SPACE, DevEx | Engineering dashboard, health report |
| Technical Debt | Interest calculation, remediation prioritization, principal estimation | Technical debt register |
| Innovation Pipeline | Horizon scanning, POC criteria, production readiness gates | Innovation funnel, POC report |
When to Load
Load this skill when the task involves:
- Evaluating a new technology or tool for adoption
- Making a build-vs-buy decision with TCO analysis
- Designing or auditing architecture governance processes
- Setting up engineering metrics dashboards (DORA, SPACE)
- Quantifying and prioritizing technical debt remediation
- Running an innovation pipeline with POC-to-production gates
- Deprecating or retiring legacy technology
- Conducting an architecture review board session
Loading Order
skill_view('technology-radar') # This — methodology index
skill_view('executive-methodology') # Shared decision frameworks
skill_view('artifact-pyramids') # Output contract
skill_view('technology-radar', file_path='references/technology-radar.md')
skill_view('technology-radar', file_path='references/build-vs-buy.md')
skill_view('technology-radar', file_path='references/architecture-governance.md')
skill_view('technology-radar', file_path='references/engineering-metrics.md')
Reference Files
| Reference | Load When | File |
|---|---|---|
| Technology Radar | You need to evaluate and categorize a technology or tool for adoption, trial, assessment, or hold | references/technology-radar.md |
| Build vs Buy | You're comparing build vs buy options with TCO analysis and decision criteria | references/build-vs-buy.md |
| Architecture Governance | You're designing RFC processes, review boards, or architecture standards | references/architecture-governance.md |
| Engineering Metrics | You need to measure engineering effectiveness with DORA, SPACE, or DevEx frameworks | references/engineering-metrics.md |
Design Principles
- Technology is a means, not an end. Every technology decision must trace back to a business outcome. "Because it's new" is not a reason to adopt. "Because it solves X faster/safer/cheaper" is.
- Radar is a living document. A technology radar updated once a year is a museum. Update it quarterly, or every time a significant adoption/hold/promote/promote-to-trial decision is made.
- Build vs buy is never just cost. Total Cost of Ownership includes maintenance, hiring, training, integration, migration, and opportunity cost. A cheaper build today may be vastly more expensive over 3 years.
- Engineering metrics measure the system, not the people. DORA metrics measure the delivery capability of the org. SPACE measures developer satisfaction. Neither is a performance review tool for individuals.
- Technical debt has a principal and an interest payment. The principal is the cost to fix it properly. The interest is the recurring drag on velocity. Prioritize debt where interest/principal ratio is highest.
- Production readiness gates exist to prevent crisis. Every gate that is skipped in the name of speed will be paid for in incident response time later.
Related Skills
executive-methodology— shared decision frameworks and governanceoperational-design— COO-side process design and scalingartifact-pyramids— output contract specificationplatform-engineering— infrastructure and CI/CD implementation patterns
When not to use it
- →Evaluating technology solely based on novelty
- →Using engineering metrics for individual performance reviews
- →Skipping production readiness gates to increase speed
Limitations
- →Requires quarterly updates to remain relevant
- →Metrics measure system performance rather than individual output
How it compares
Unlike generic project management, this skill focuses on specific CTO-level governance artifacts like ADRs, technical debt registers, and innovation funnels.
Compared to similar skills
technology-radar side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| technology-radar (this skill) | 0 | 1mo | No flags | Advanced |
| INDUSTRY_RND | 0 | 2mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| create-plan | 36 | 7mo | Review | Beginner |
| project-planner | 32 | 9mo | Review | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
You might also like
INDUSTRY_RND
neej4
INDUSTRY_RND — an agent skill by neej4.
create-plan
antinomyhq
Generate detailed implementation plans for complex tasks. Creates comprehensive strategic plans in Markdown format with objectives, step-by-step implementation tasks using checkbox format, verification criteria, risk assessments, and alternative approaches. Use when users need thorough analysis and structured planning before implementation, when breaking down complex features into actionable steps, or when they explicitly ask for a plan, roadmap, or strategy. Strictly planning-focused with no code modifications.
project-planner
adrianpuiu
Comprehensive project planning and documentation generator for software projects. Creates structured requirements documents, system design documents, and task breakdown plans with implementation tracking. Use when starting a new project, defining specifications, creating technical designs, or breaking down complex systems into implementable tasks. Supports user story format, acceptance criteria, component design, API specifications, and hierarchical task decomposition with requirement traceability.
system-design
lagz0ne
Use when designing, architecting, or planning a new system from requirements or ideas - transforms concepts into navigable design catalog using EventStorming methodology, Mermaid diagrams, and progressive elaboration through 5 phases (Requirements, Big Picture, Processes, Data/Flows, Integration)
spec-kit-workflow
jmanhype
Guides specification-driven development workflow. Automatically invoked when discussing new features, specifications, technical planning, or implementation tasks. Ensures proper workflow phases (specify → clarify → plan → checklist → tasks → analyze → implement).
sparc-methodology
ruvnet
SPARC (Specification, Pseudocode, Architecture, Refinement, Completion) comprehensive development methodology with multi-agent orchestration