Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
前端设计external-servicegithub未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

tech-stack-eval技术栈评估

Agent Skill

tech-stack-eval 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

682

周安装

29

GitHub Stars

114

下载量

239
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:tech-stack-eval(技术栈评估)
来源仓库:https://github.com/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills
仓库路径:skills/tech-stack-eval
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills --skill tech-stack-eval
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills --skill tech-stack-eval

简介

用于处理技术栈相关的协作信息和代码变更。

  • 适合分析 GitHub 仓库活动和开发流程。
  • 可生成项目健康度和技术债务概览。tech-stack-eval 属于前端设计类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 使用前请确认是否具备仓库读取权限。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。
  • 建议结合 CI/CD 日志验证分析结果。

SKILL.md

Tech Stack Evaluation

When to Use

  • Comparing frontend/backend frameworks or libraries for new projects
  • Evaluating cloud providers (AWS vs Azure vs GCP) for specific workloads
  • Planning technology migrations with risk and effort assessment
  • Calculating TCO including hidden costs; making build vs. buy decisions
  • Assessing open-source library viability and ecosystem health

Do NOT use when: the decision is trivial (use team preference), the technology is already mandated, or this is an emergency production issue.

Context Required

From startup-context: product type, team skills, tech stack, stage, scale, budget. Also ask:

  • What problem are you solving? (push back on solution-first thinking)
  • Non-negotiable requirements (performance, compliance, team familiarity)
  • Team experience with each option and timeline pressure (tight deadlines favor familiar tools)
  • Growth expectations that affect scalability requirements

Workflow

  1. Clarify the decision — What exactly is being decided and what are the real requirements? Push back if the user picks tech before defining the problem.
  2. Identify candidates — List 2-4 realistic options. Exclude clearly wrong choices early.
  3. Define weighted evaluation criteria — Select 6-8 criteria from the master list below. Assign weights based on the user's priorities (total = 100%).
  4. Score each candidate — Rate 1-5 on each criterion with one-line justification per score.
  5. Assess ecosystem health — Evaluate GitHub activity, npm/PyPI adoption, community strength, corporate backing, and trajectory (growing, stable, declining).
  6. Calculate TCO — Project 5-year total cost including compute, storage, bandwidth, licensing, engineering time (setup + ongoing), and operational overhead. Engineering time is usually the largest cost for startups.
  7. Analyze migration path — If migrating, estimate effort, risks, timeline, and recommend phased approach (strangler fig pattern).
  8. Deliver recommendation — Clear winner with rationale and confidence level. No "it depends" without a follow-up question to resolve the ambiguity.

Output Format

# Tech Stack Evaluation: [Decision Title]

## Decision Context — what we are choosing and why it matters
## Candidates — table: technology, version, license, one-liner
## Evaluation Criteria — table: criterion, weight, why it matters
## Scoring Matrix — table: criterion (weight), scores per option, weighted total
## Ecosystem Health — table: GitHub stars, weekly downloads, last release, open issues, major users
## TCO Estimate — table: cost category by option over 12 months or 5 years
## Security & Compliance — vulnerability history, compliance readiness (SOC 2, GDPR)
## Recommendation — clear winner, rationale, confidence level, caveats
## Migration Path (if applicable) — phased plan with timeline and rollback strategy

Frameworks & Best Practices

Master Evaluation Criteria

Select 6-8 and assign weights (total = 100%):

  • Performance — throughput, latency, resource efficiency for the specific workload
  • Developer Experience — tooling, debugging, documentation quality, error messages
  • Learning Curve / Team Familiarity — time to productivity for the current team
  • Ecosystem & Libraries — packages, integrations, third-party support
  • Maintenance & Longevity — release cadence, corporate backing, bus factor
  • Hiring Pool — developer availability in your market and salary band
  • Scalability — handle 10-100x growth without a rewrite
  • Cost / Vendor Lock-in — TCO and switching cost if you need to move later
  • Security & Compliance — vulnerability track record, compliance tooling readiness

Ecosystem Health Scoring

LevelCriteria
ThrivingRegular releases (< 3 months), growing adoption, multiple corporate sponsors, active community
StableRegular releases (< 6 months), steady adoption, established community, no decline signs
At RiskInfrequent releases (> 12 months), declining downloads, key maintainers leaving, few contributors

TCO Calculation Framework

Project over 12 months minimum (5 years for infrastructure decisions): compute, storage, bandwidth, licensing, engineering time (setup + ongoing maintenance x loaded cost), operational overhead (monitoring, on-call), and hidden costs (training, migration tooling, dual-running).

Engineering time is usually the largest cost for startups. A technology saving $200/month on hosting but costing 40 extra engineering hours to operate is a net loss.

Migration Risk Assessment

Risk LevelCriteria
LowAdditive change, no data migration, can run in parallel, < 2 weeks
MediumRequires data migration or API changes, 2-8 weeks, can be phased
HighCore system replacement, > 8 weeks, requires downtime or big-bang cutover

Use the strangler fig pattern: route new traffic to the new system, migrate old incrementally. Always maintain rollback capability. Set a concrete cut-off date -- half-migrated systems are the worst outcome.

Confidence Levels

LevelScoreInterpretation
High80-100%Clear winner, strong data, wide margin
Medium50-79%Trade-offs present, recommendation holds but with caveats
Low< 50%Close call, limited data, suggest a proof-of-concept before committing

Common Decision Anti-Patterns

  • Resume-Driven Development — choosing tech for resumes, not fit
  • Hype Cycle Trap — adopting at peak hype before stability is proven
  • Premature Optimization — distributed systems when a single Postgres handles the load
  • Sunk Cost Fallacy — refusing to migrate because of prior investment
  • Ignoring Team Skills / Solution-First Thinking — picking tech nobody knows, or selecting technology before defining the problem

Related Skills

  • architecture-design — chain when the tech stack decision feeds into a broader system design
  • cicd-setup — chain to configure CI/CD for the chosen technology

Examples

Example prompt: "Compare React vs Vue for a SaaS dashboard. Priorities: developer productivity (40%), ecosystem (30%), performance (30%)."

Good output snippet:

## Scoring Matrix
| Criterion (weight)       | React | Vue  |
|--------------------------|-------|------|
| Developer Productivity (40%) | 4/5   | 4/5  |
| Ecosystem (30%)          | 5/5   | 4/5  |
| Performance (30%)        | 4/5   | 5/5  |
| **Weighted Total**       | **4.3** | **4.3** |

Confidence: Medium (55%). Scores are nearly identical. Recommendation: React,
but only because your team has 2 years of React experience (not captured in
the matrix). If the team were greenfield, Vue's developer experience gives it
a slight edge. This is close enough to warrant team preference as the tiebreaker.

Example prompt: "We're on Heroku at $2,400/mo. Should we migrate to AWS?"

Good output snippet:

## TCO Estimate (12 months)
| Category             | Heroku    | AWS               |
|----------------------|-----------|-------------------|
| Compute              | $1,200/mo | $480/mo (ECS)     |
| Database             | $800/mo   | $350/mo (RDS)     |
| Add-ons              | $400/mo   | $120/mo           |
| Engineering (setup)  | $0        | $12,000 one-time  |
| Engineering (ongoing)| 2 hrs/mo  | 8 hrs/mo          |
| **Annual Total**     | **$28,800** | **$18,000**     |

Break-even at month 14. At Series A with a team of 6, wait until Heroku hits
$4,000/mo — engineering hours are better spent on product right now.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

35.91%
按下载量换算86

Claude

28.94%
按下载量换算69

Cursor

18.66%
按下载量换算45

Gemini CLI

9.48%
按下载量换算23

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

external-service

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills