---

name: options-output description: Defines the format for presenting implementation alternatives with trade-offs comparison table, pros/cons analysis, and clear recommendation.

Options Output Skill

Name: dev-plan-v2:options-output

Description: Defines the standard format for presenting implementation alternatives with trade-offs. Designed for quick comparison and decision-making.

When to Use

Use this skill to format the output of the approach-designer agent when presenting multiple implementation options to the user.

Target Audience

Decision makers (developers, tech leads, stakeholders) who need to quickly compare approaches and make informed choices.

Core Principle: Decision-Ready Format

Options should be:

1. Scannable - Overview table for quick comparison
2. Balanced - Fair pros/cons for each option
3. Actionable - Clear recommendation with rationale
4. Decisive - Ends with selection prompt

Required Structure

Copy# Options: [Task/Decision Title]

## Context

[2-3 sentences max: What we're deciding and key constraints]

---

## Options Overview

| Approach | Complexity | Risk | [Key Factor 1] | [Key Factor 2] | Best For |
|----------|------------|------|----------------|----------------|----------|
| A: [Name] | S/M/L/XL | Low/Med/High | ⭐-⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐-⭐⭐⭐ | [Use case] |
| B: [Name] | S/M/L/XL | Low/Med/High | ⭐-⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐-⭐⭐⭐ | [Use case] |
| C: [Name] | S/M/L/XL | Low/Med/High | ⭐-⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐-⭐⭐⭐ | [Use case] |

---

## Option A: [Descriptive Name]

**Summary**: [One sentence - what this approach does]

**How it works**:
[2-3 sentences - high-level implementation approach]

**Pros**:
- [Pro 1 - specific benefit]
- [Pro 2 - specific benefit]
- [Pro 3 - specific benefit]

**Cons**:
- [Con 1 - specific drawback]
- [Con 2 - specific drawback]

**Best when**: [Scenario where this is the right choice]

---

## Option B: [Descriptive Name]

[Same structure as Option A]

---

## Option C: [Descriptive Name]

[Same structure as Option A]

---

## Recommendation

**Recommended: Option [X]** - [Name]

**Primary reasons**:
1. [Reason 1 - most important]
2. [Reason 2 - supporting]
3. [Reason 3 - if applicable]

**Trade-offs accepted**:
- [What we give up by choosing this]

**When to reconsider**:
- [Conditions that would make another option better]

Formatting Rules

Context Section

• Maximum 3 sentences
• Include key constraints that affect the decision
• No implementation details

Overview Table

• Always include: Complexity, Risk, Best For
• Add 1-2 domain-specific factors (Scalability, Performance, Maintainability, etc.)
• Use ⭐ scale (⭐ to ⭐⭐⭐) for qualitative factors
• "Best For" should be a short use case descriptor

Individual Options

• Summary: Exactly one sentence
• How it works: 2-3 sentences max, high-level only
• Pros: 2-4 bullet points, specific and concrete
• Cons: 2-4 bullet points, specific and concrete
• Best when: One sentence describing ideal scenario

Recommendation Section

• State recommended option clearly at top
• Exactly 2-3 primary reasons
• Always acknowledge trade-offs
• "When to reconsider" helps future decision-making

Complexity Scale

Risk Scale

Star Rating Guide

Use for qualitative factors in overview table:

Rules for Fair Comparison

1. No Strawmen: Every option must be genuinely viable
2. Balanced Pros/Cons: Similar detail level for each option
3. Honest Assessment: Don't artificially favor one option
4. Concrete Examples: Pros/cons should be specific, not generic
5. Context-Aware: Consider project's specific constraints

Anti-patterns to Avoid

❌ Vague pros/cons:

• "More flexible" → ✅ "Supports 5 auth providers vs 2"
• "Better performance" → ✅ "Handles 10x more requests"

❌ Unfair comparison:

• Option A with 5 pros, Option B with 1 pro → Balance them

❌ Missing trade-offs:

• Recommendation without acknowledging downsides

❌ Too many options:

• More than 3-4 options creates decision paralysis

Quality Checklist

Before presenting options:

• Context is 3 sentences or less
• Overview table has consistent columns
• Each option has 2-4 pros AND 2-4 cons
• Pros/cons are specific, not generic
• All options are genuinely viable (no strawmen)
• Recommendation is clear with reasons
• Trade-offs are acknowledged
• "When to reconsider" is included

After Presenting Options

End with AskUserQuestion tool:

CopyHeader: "Approach"
Question: "Which approach would you like to proceed with?"
Options:
  1. "Option A: [Name]" (Recommended) - if A is recommended
  2. "Option B: [Name]"
  3. "Option C: [Name]"

(User can always select "Other" for custom approach)