Skills › BMAD Method › bmad-deep-recon › selection.md
selection.md
13 lines · skills/bmad-deep-recon/references/selection.md at bd70c64
1# The Select Shape
3When the decision is **choose between candidates** — technologies, vendors, libraries, platforms, agencies, anything — this method layers over whichever research type fits the subject. The type pack still governs sources, craft, and freshness; this shape governs the flow and the verdict.
51. **Requirements.** What must the winner do, under what constraints — scale, compliance, budget, team skills, existing stack, exit-cost tolerance? Split hard gates from weighted preferences and set the weights. Sources: the ticket for this work, read in full, then the companions it names, `{workflow.persistent_facts}`, and the user; with no ticket, the brief, PRD, architecture document and codebase — web research does not set requirements. **Agree the requirements before any candidate research runs**; interactive runs confirm them even though the plan gate approved the dimension list.
62. **Candidate screen.** Establish the credible field — leaders, strong challengers, one wildcard — and cut anything failing a hard gate. Screen to 3–5 finalists; record the cuts and why. Screening sources ≤ 6 months old — this field moves.
73. **Evidence per criterion.** Score finalists against the requirements using the type pack's dimensions and craft, verified against current versions/offerings. Cite every contested cell; where vendor claims and independent experience diverge, the divergence is a finding.
84. **Cost & lock-in.** Total cost over the product's horizon — license/subscription, hosting, operational load, learning curve — and the cost of leaving. Current pricing pages read directly (≤ 3 mo, always); pricing-change history — a vendor that repriced once will again; migration-away accounts for real exit costs.
95. **Verdict.** The weighted decision matrix — show the scoring, not just totals; a matrix the user can re-weight is worth more than a verdict they must trust. Then: the pick; the named runner-up and the conditions under which it wins instead; the strongest argument against the pick (from the red-team pass when it ran); the cheapest reversibility hedge (abstraction seam, pilot scope, exit test).
11**Two-source classes (added to the type's own):** pricing figures; performance/scale numbers; any cell that decides between the top two finalists.
13**Staleness:** a selection report older than two quarters should be refreshed before anyone acts on it — say so in the report.
The Select Shape
When the decision is choose between candidates — technologies, vendors, libraries, platforms, agencies, anything — this method layers over whichever research type fits the subject. The type pack still governs sources, craft, and freshness; this shape governs the flow and the verdict.
- Requirements. What must the winner do, under what constraints — scale, compliance, budget, team skills, existing stack, exit-cost tolerance? Split hard gates from weighted preferences and set the weights. Sources: the ticket for this work, read in full, then the companions it names,
{workflow.persistent_facts}, and the user; with no ticket, the brief, PRD, architecture document and codebase — web research does not set requirements. Agree the requirements before any candidate research runs; interactive runs confirm them even though the plan gate approved the dimension list. - Candidate screen. Establish the credible field — leaders, strong challengers, one wildcard — and cut anything failing a hard gate. Screen to 3–5 finalists; record the cuts and why. Screening sources ≤ 6 months old — this field moves.
- Evidence per criterion. Score finalists against the requirements using the type pack's dimensions and craft, verified against current versions/offerings. Cite every contested cell; where vendor claims and independent experience diverge, the divergence is a finding.
- Cost & lock-in. Total cost over the product's horizon — license/subscription, hosting, operational load, learning curve — and the cost of leaving. Current pricing pages read directly (≤ 3 mo, always); pricing-change history — a vendor that repriced once will again; migration-away accounts for real exit costs.
- Verdict. The weighted decision matrix — show the scoring, not just totals; a matrix the user can re-weight is worth more than a verdict they must trust. Then: the pick; the named runner-up and the conditions under which it wins instead; the strongest argument against the pick (from the red-team pass when it ran); the cheapest reversibility hedge (abstraction seam, pilot scope, exit test).
Two-source classes (added to the type's own): pricing figures; performance/scale numbers; any cell that decides between the top two finalists.
Staleness: a selection report older than two quarters should be refreshed before anyone acts on it — say so in the report.
Raw lines 1 to 13