Technology Evaluation

Purpose

Systematically evaluate and compare technology options (frameworks, languages, databases, tools) to make informed decisions that balance functionality, team capability, and long-term sustainability.

When to Use

• Initial tech stack selection
• Adding new components
• Replacing existing technology
• Evaluating new libraries

Prerequisites

• Requirements understood
• Constraints identified
• Team skills inventory
• Budget constraints known

Process

Step 1: Define Evaluation Criteria

Common criteria:
- Functionality fit (does it solve the problem?)
- Performance (meets NFRs?)
- Team familiarity (learning curve)
- Community/support (ecosystem health)
- Cost (licensing, infrastructure)
- Security (known vulnerabilities)
- Longevity (active maintenance)
- Integration (works with other choices)

Step 2: Identify Candidates

For each component:
- Research leading options
- Include open-source and commercial
- Check minimum 3 alternatives
- Include "build custom" option if relevant

Step 3: Create Comparison Matrix

| Criteria | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| Feature fit | 25% | 4/5 | 5/5 | 3/5 |
| Performance | 20% | 4/5 | 4/5 | 5/5 |
| Team skill | 20% | 5/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 |
| Community | 15% | 5/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 |
| Cost | 10% | 5/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 |
| Security | 10% | 4/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| WEIGHTED | 100% | 4.35 | 3.85 | 3.25 |

Step 4: Perform POC (if needed)

For close decisions:
- Build minimal proof of concept
- Test critical functionality
- Measure performance
- Evaluate developer experience

Step 5: Document Decision

Create ADR including:
- Options evaluated
- Evaluation criteria and weights
- Scores and analysis
- Decision and rationale
- Risks and mitigations

Inputs

Input	Type	Required	Description
requirements	Markdown	Yes	Feature requirements
nfr_matrix	Markdown	Yes	Performance needs
team_skills	JSON	Optional	Team capabilities

Outputs

Output	Type	Description
tech_evaluation.md	Markdown	Comparison analysis
tech_stack_decision.md	Markdown	Final decisions
ADR-xxx	Markdown	Decision records

StudyAbroad-Specific Considerations

• OAuth2 library selection critical for security
• ORM that handles PostgreSQL well
• Frontend framework with good form handling
• File upload library for documents
• Consider i18n support for multi-language

Integration Points

• Developer Agent: Team skill input
• Security Agent: Security evaluation
• DevOps Agent: Deployment compatibility

Examples

Tech Stack Evaluation - StudyAbroad-v1

BACKEND FRAMEWORK:
| Criteria | Express | NestJS | FastAPI |
|----------|---------|--------|---------|
| Team skill | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| TypeScript | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Performance | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Structure | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Ecosystem | 5 | 4 | 4 |

Decision: NestJS
Rationale: Better structure for larger app,
           TypeScript-first, good for team growth

DATABASE:
| Criteria | PostgreSQL | MySQL | MongoDB |
|----------|------------|-------|---------|
| ACID | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| JSON support | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Team skill | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Hosting options | 5 | 5 | 4 |

Decision: PostgreSQL
Rationale: ACID compliance, JSON support,
           excellent hosting options

Final Tech Stack:
- Frontend: React + TypeScript
- Backend: NestJS (Node.js)
- Database: PostgreSQL
- ORM: Prisma
- Auth: Passport.js with OAuth2
- Cache: Redis
- File Storage: AWS S3
- Search: PostgreSQL full-text (initially)

Validation

• All major components evaluated
• Criteria weights agreed with team
• No conflicting technology choices
• ADRs created for major decisions
• POCs completed for risky choices