Skip to content

Tradeoffs Decorator

Analyzes design tradeoffs across multiple dimensions.

Category: Architecture And Design

Parameters

Parameter Type Description Default
axes enum Dimensions to analyze performance,cost,complexity,maintainability
format enum Presentation format decision-matrix
depth enum Analysis depth detailed

Axes Options

  • performance: Option: performance
  • cost: Option: cost
  • complexity: Option: complexity
  • maintainability: Option: maintainability
  • security: Option: security
  • time-to-market: Option: time-to-market

Format Options

  • table: Present your analysis in a tabular format with options as rows and dimensions as columns.
  • prose: Present your analysis as a structured prose discussion of each option across the dimensions.
  • radar-chart: Describe how a radar chart would represent these tradeoffs, with each axis representing one dimension.
  • decision-matrix: Create a decision matrix that scores each option across the dimensions, with a final recommendation based on the overall scores.

Depth Options

  • overview: Provide a high-level overview of the key tradeoffs without detailed analysis.
  • detailed: Provide a thorough analysis with specific examples and reasoning for each dimension.
  • quantitative: Where possible, include quantitative metrics and measurements to support your analysis.

Examples

Analyzing database hosting options

+++Tradeoffs(axes=performance,cost,security,maintainability, format=decision-matrix)
Analyze the tradeoffs between using a managed database service versus self-hosted for a financial application.

A decision matrix comparing managed vs. self-hosted database options across performance, cost, security, and maintainability dimensions, with scores and a final recommendation.

Comparing programming languages

+++Tradeoffs(axes=performance,complexity,time-to-market, format=table, depth=overview)
Compare Python, Java, and Rust for developing a new data processing pipeline.

A table showing a high-level overview of how Python, Java, and Rust compare across performance, complexity, and time-to-market dimensions.

Model-Specific Implementations

gpt-4-turbo

Instruction: Create a detailed comparison of the options across multiple dimensions. For each dimension, explain the tradeoffs between the different approaches.

Notes: Simpler instruction for models with less analytical capability.

Implementation Guidance

Software architecture decision

Original Prompt: 

Compare microservices vs monolithic architecture for our e-commerce platform.

Transformed Prompt: 

Analyze the tradeoffs between different options considering the specified dimensions. Present a balanced assessment that highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Analyze the following dimensions: performance,cost,complexity,maintainability. Create a decision matrix that scores each option across the dimensions, with a final recommendation based on the overall scores. Provide a thorough analysis with specific examples and reasoning for each dimension.

Compare microservices vs monolithic architecture for our e-commerce platform.

Notes: The decorator adds structure to the comparison by specifying dimensions and format.

Transformation Details

Base Instruction: Analyze the tradeoffs between different options considering the specified dimensions. Present a balanced assessment that highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

Placement: prepend

Composition Behavior: accumulate

Parameter Effects:

  • axes:

  • Format: Analyze the following dimensions: {value}.

  • format:

  • When set to table: Present your analysis in a tabular format with options as rows and dimensions as columns.
  • When set to prose: Present your analysis as a structured prose discussion of each option across the dimensions.
  • When set to radar-chart: Describe how a radar chart would represent these tradeoffs, with each axis representing one dimension.

  • When set to decision-matrix: Create a decision matrix that scores each option across the dimensions, with a final recommendation based on the overall scores.

  • depth:

  • When set to overview: Provide a high-level overview of the key tradeoffs without detailed analysis.
  • When set to detailed: Provide a thorough analysis with specific examples and reasoning for each dimension.
  • When set to quantitative: Where possible, include quantitative metrics and measurements to support your analysis.

Compatibility

  • Requires: None
  • Conflicts: Pros
  • Compatible Models: gpt-4o, gpt-4-turbo, claude-3-7-sonnet-latest, llama-3.2
  • Standard Version: 1.0.0 - 1.5.0
  • Reasoning: Enhances Tradeoffs Tradeoffs works well with Reasoning to provide more structured analytical thinking.
  • Pros: Conflicts with Tradeoffs Tradeoffs provides a more comprehensive analysis than simple pros/cons and should not be used together.