design-options

To compare architectural design options, you can prompt the system to generate 2-3 alternatives with explicit trade-offs, touched modules, and integration considerations aligned with your project patterns. This surfaces risks early and supports an informed decision before committing to a plan.

In architecture decision-making, Minimal, Clean, and Pragmatic styles are distinct design constraints applied to parallel agents generating architectural options. They produce varied architectural approaches side-by-side to help teams evaluate trade-offs and choose the best fit for their project.

You should explore multiple architectural alternatives when facing high architectural risk, open design questions, or explicit requests for different approaches. Comparing options before committing reduces rework and surfaces integration considerations and trade-offs early in the planning phase.

To generate side-by-side architecture trade-offs for a design review, prompt the system to explore design options. It launches parallel architecture-expert agents under Minimal, Clean, and Pragmatic style constraints, returning touched modules and integration considerations for each path.

The best way to surface integration considerations across different architectural approaches is to generate parallel options under distinct style constraints. This method aligns results with project patterns and explicitly maps touched modules and trade-offs for each alternative.

Design-options is intended for high architectural risk, open design questions, or explicit requests for alternatives. Using it for small tasks with low architectural risk is unnecessary, as the overhead of generating parallel Minimal, Clean, and Pragmatic options outweighs the benefit.