Technology Radar

Purpose

Assess technology maturity and fitness for the project, placing it on a radar quadrant with a clear adoption recommendation and risk profile.

Scope Constraints

Evaluates technologies, frameworks, tools, and platforms — not individual utility libraries.
Focuses on maturity, ecosystem health, and project fit — not feature-by-feature product comparisons.
Does not produce migration implementation plans; flag migration complexity for handoff.

Inputs

Technology, framework, or tool to evaluate
Current tech stack and existing choices
Project requirements and constraints
Team size, skills, and familiarity
Timeline and urgency

Input Sanitization

No user-provided values are used in commands or file paths. All inputs are treated as read-only analysis targets.

Procedure

Step 1: Categorize the Technology

Classify into one or more categories:

Language (TypeScript, Rust, Go, Python)
Framework (Next.js, SvelteKit, Remix, Astro)
Library (React, Vue, Solid, htmx)
Tool (Vite, Turbopack, Biome, ESLint)
Platform (Vercel, Cloudflare, AWS, Supabase)
Infrastructure (Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, Pulumi)

Step 2: Assess Maturity Level

Place the technology in one quadrant:

Adopt — Proven in production at scale, low risk, strong ecosystem. We recommend using this.
Trial — Promising technology worth exploring in non-critical paths. We've seen enough to recommend trying it.
Assess — Interesting technology worth watching and experimenting with. Not ready for production use.
Hold — Use with caution or actively migrate away. Known issues, declining ecosystem, or better alternatives exist.

Evidence for placement:

Production usage at notable companies
Stability of API (frequency of breaking changes)
Age and version history
Community sentiment trend (growing, stable, declining)

Step 3: Evaluate Ecosystem Health

Documentation quality: Official docs completeness, tutorials, examples
Community size: GitHub stars, npm downloads, Discord/forum activity, conference talks
Corporate backing: Funded by a company? Independent maintainers? Foundation-backed?
Plugin/integration ecosystem: Middleware, extensions, adapters for common tools
Hiring market: Can you find developers who know this? Learning resources available?

Step 4: Check Team Familiarity and Learning Curve

How many team members have experience with this technology?
What is the learning curve (days, weeks, months to productivity)?
Are there similar technologies the team already knows that transfer?
What training or ramp-up would be needed?

Step 5: Estimate Migration Cost from Current Stack

What does the current solution look like?
How many files, modules, or systems would need to change?
Can migration be incremental or must it be all-at-once?
What is the estimated effort (days/weeks/months)?
What risks exist during migration (dual-system complexity, feature parity gaps)?

Step 6: Assess Long-term Viability

Funding model: VC-funded, open source donations, corporate sponsor, commercial license
Roadmap clarity: Published roadmap? Active development toward clear goals?
Adoption trend: Growing, plateau, declining? (npm downloads over 2 years)
Lock-in risk: How hard is it to switch away if needed?
Standards alignment: Does it follow web standards, or create proprietary abstractions?

Step 7: Evaluate Alignment with Project Requirements

Does it solve the specific problem at hand?
Performance characteristics match requirements?
Deployment model compatibility (serverless, edge, traditional server)?
Scaling characteristics for expected load?
Security posture and vulnerability response history?

Progress Checklist

[ ] Step 1: Technology categorized
[ ] Step 2: Maturity level assessed
[ ] Step 3: Ecosystem health evaluated
[ ] Step 4: Team familiarity checked
[ ] Step 5: Migration cost estimated
[ ] Step 6: Long-term viability assessed
[ ] Step 7: Project alignment evaluated

Compaction resilience: If context was compacted, re-read this SKILL.md and check the Progress Checklist for completed steps before continuing.

Handoff

If migration complexity is significant, recommend loading operator/deployment-plan for migration planning.
If security posture concerns emerge, recommend loading skeptic/threat-model for threat analysis.

Output Format

Technology Radar Placement

              ADOPT
                |
         +-----------+
         |  [Name]   |    (or placed in TRIAL / ASSESS / HOLD)
         +-----------+
                |
  HOLD ------- + ------- TRIAL
                |
              ASSESS

Quadrant: [Adopt / Trial / Assess / Hold] Confidence: [High / Medium / Low] Category: [Language / Framework / Library / Tool / Platform / Infrastructure]

Adoption Recommendation

Recommendation: [Adopt now / Trial in next sprint / Assess and revisit in N months / Hold and consider alternatives] Timeline: [Immediate / Next quarter / Next half / Not recommended] Migration path: [Description of incremental adoption strategy if applicable]

Risk Assessment

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | |------|-----------|--------|------------| | ... | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | ... |

Comparison with Current Solution

| Aspect | Current | Proposed | Delta | |--------|---------|----------|-------| | Performance | ... | ... | ... | | DX | ... | ... | ... | | Ecosystem | ... | ... | ... | | Maintenance | ... | ... | ... |

Quality Checks

[ ] Technology categorized accurately
[ ] Maturity level justified with evidence (not opinion)
[ ] Ecosystem health assessed across all dimensions
[ ] Team familiarity and learning curve honestly evaluated
[ ] Migration cost estimated with scope
[ ] Long-term viability assessed (funding, adoption trend, lock-in)
[ ] Project-specific requirements checked for alignment
[ ] Risk assessment includes mitigation strategies

Evolution Notes