options 1

<objective> Compare options for $ARGUMENTS (or the current topic if no arguments provided).

Structured side-by-side comparison to make an informed decision. Works for tools, approaches, vendors, architectures. </objective>

<intake_gate>

<context_analysis> First, analyze $ARGUMENTS to extract what's already provided:

• What decision is being made
• Known options to compare
• Decision criteria
• Must-haves vs nice-to-haves

Only ask about genuine gaps - don't re-ask what's already stated. </context_analysis>

<initial_questions> Use AskUserQuestion to ask 2-4 questions based on actual gaps:

If criteria unclear:

• "What matters most?" with options: Simplicity, Performance, Flexibility, Maintenance burden, Let me specify, Other

If options unclear:

• "Which options to compare?" with options: I have a list, Find the main contenders, Compare everything, Other

If weighting unclear:

• "Any deal-breakers?" with options: Must have specific feature, Must be simple, Must be performant, No deal-breakers, Other

If constraints unclear:

• "Any constraints?" with options: Must integrate with existing system, Budget limits, Specific tech requirements, None significant, Other

Skip questions where $ARGUMENTS already provides the answer. </initial_questions>

<decision_gate> After receiving answers, use AskUserQuestion:

Question: "Ready to compare options, or would you like me to ask more questions?"

Options:

1. Start comparison - I have enough context
2. Ask more questions - There are details to clarify
3. Let me add context - I want to provide additional information

If "Ask more questions" → generate 2-3 contextual follow-ups, then present decision gate again If "Let me add context" → receive input, then present decision gate again If "Start comparison" → proceed to research </decision_gate>

</intake_gate>

<process> After intake complete:

1. Define decision criteria (what matters for this choice)
2. List all viable options
3. Evaluate each option against each criterion
4. Weight criteria by importance
5. Make recommendation with reasoning </process>

<output_format>

Options Comparison: [Decision]

Strategic Summary

[2-3 sentences: the options, recommendation, key tradeoff]

Context

[Brief description of what we're deciding and why it matters]

Decision Criteria

1. [Criterion] - [why it matters] - Weight: High/Med/Low
2. [Criterion] - [why it matters] - Weight: High/Med/Low
3. [Criterion] - [why it matters] - Weight: High/Med/Low

Options

Option A: [Name]

• [Criterion 1]: [Rating + brief note]
• [Criterion 2]: [Rating + brief note]
• [Criterion 3]: [Rating + brief note]
• Score: X/10

Option B: [Name]

• [Criterion 1]: [Rating + brief note]
• [Criterion 2]: [Rating + brief note]
• [Criterion 3]: [Rating + brief note]
• Score: X/10

Option C: [Name] [Same structure...]

Comparison Matrix

Recommendation

[Option X] because [reasoning tied to weighted criteria]

Runner-up

[Option Y] - choose this if [specific condition]

Implementation Context

<claude_context> <chosen>

• option: [chosen option name]
• install: [how to install/set up]
• config: [configuration needed]
• patterns: [usage patterns]
• docs: [documentation reference] </chosen>

<runner_up>

• option: [runner-up name]
• when: [conditions where this becomes better choice]
• switch_cost: [effort to switch later if needed] </runner_up> <integration>
• existing_code: [how it fits with current codebase]
• gotchas: [common issues with this option]
• testing: [how to verify it works] </integration>

</claude_context>

Next Action: Implement chosen option, prototype to validate, or gather more info on specific option

Sources

• [Source name]: [URL] - [date accessed]
• [Source name]: [URL] - [date accessed] </output_format>

<artifact_output> Save the research to a file:

1. Create directory structure if it doesn't exist:

   • [current-working-directory]/artifacts/research/

2. Generate filename from topic:

   • Get current date in YYYY-MM-DD format
   • Slugify the topic (lowercase, hyphens for spaces)
   • Format: YYYY-MM-DD-[topic]-options.md
   • Example: 2025-01-15-auth-providers-options.md

3. Write the complete research to the file

4. Report to user: "Saved to artifacts/research/[filename]" </artifact_output>

<success_criteria>

• Criteria reflect what actually matters for this decision
• Options are genuinely comparable (apples to apples)
• Ratings are justified, not arbitrary
• Recommendation follows from analysis
• Runner-up provides contingency
• Implementation context gives Claude everything needed to proceed
• Output saved to artifacts/research/ directory </success_criteria>