Cto Advisor | Skills Pool
Cto Advisor CTO-level advisory - build vs buy decisions, tech debt quantification, team scaling, ADRs, technology evaluation (RICE), budget planning, TCO, vendor management, DORA/SPACE metrics
vibeeval 470 stars Apr 12, 2026 Occupation Categories Finance & Investment Build vs Buy Decision Framework
Decision Matrix
## Build vs Buy Analysis: [Feature/System Name]
### Scoring (1-5 each)
| Factor | Build | Buy | Weight |
|--------|-------|-----|--------|
| Core competency alignment | [1-5] | [1-5] | 3x |
| Time to market | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x |
| Total cost (3 year) | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x |
| Customization needs | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x |
| Maintenance burden | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| Data control | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| Integration complexity | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| Vendor risk | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| **Weighted Total** | [sum] | [sum] | |
### Decision: BUILD / BUY / HYBRID
Decision Rules
Condition Recommendation Core differentiator BUILD (competitive advantage) Commodity capability BUY (focus on core)
npx skillvault add vibeeval/vibeeval-vibecosystem-skills-cto-advisor-skill-md
stars 470
Updated Apr 12, 2026
Occupation Strict compliance / data sovereignty
Team has no domain expertise BUY (faster, less risk)
Vendor lock-in risk > 7/10 BUILD or multi-vendor
Time to market < 3 months BUY (speed)
Budget constrained, long-term BUILD (lower TCO)
Build vs Buy Anti-Patterns Anti-Pattern Neden Yanlis Dogru Yol "Not invented here" Wasted engineering time Evaluate vendors objectively "We'll build it in 2 weeks" Always takes 5x longer Realistic estimation with buffer Buying everything No differentiation Build core, buy commodity Ignoring maintenance cost Build looks cheaper initially Include 3-5 year maintenance TCO No exit strategy from vendor Lock-in trap Evaluate migration cost upfront
Tech Debt Quantification & Prioritization
Tech Debt Classification Type Description Impact Example Code debt Poor code quality Developer velocity No types, huge functions, no tests Architecture debt Wrong architectural decisions Scalability Monolith that should be microservice Test debt Insufficient test coverage Reliability No integration tests, flaky tests Dependency debt Outdated dependencies Security 3 major versions behind, CVEs Documentation debt Missing/outdated docs Onboarding No API docs, stale README Infrastructure debt Manual processes, legacy infra Reliability No CI/CD, manual deployments Design debt UX inconsistencies User experience 5 different button styles
Tech Debt Scorecard ## Tech Debt Assessment: [Project Name]
| Area | Score (1-10) | Trend | Priority |
|------|-------------|-------|----------|
| Code quality | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Test coverage | [X%] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Dependency freshness | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Build/deploy time | [X min] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Documentation | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Security posture | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
### Cost of Delay
[If we don't address debt area X, what happens in 6 months?]
### Investment Request
| Initiative | Effort | Impact | ROI Period |
|-----------|--------|--------|------------|
| [debt 1] | [weeks] | [description] | [months] |
| [debt 2] | [weeks] | [description] | [months] |
Priority Score = (Impact * Urgency * Spread) / Effort
Impact (1-5): How much does it slow the team?
Urgency (1-5): How quickly will it get worse?
Spread (1-5): How many areas does it affect?
Effort (1-5): How hard is it to fix? (inverse: 1=hard, 5=easy)
Tech Debt Budget Rule RULE: 20% of sprint capacity reserved for tech debt reduction
Sprint capacity: 10 story points
├── 8 points: Feature work
└── 2 points: Tech debt reduction (ZORUNLU, negotiable degil)
Team Scaling Strategies
Hiring Framework ## Hiring Plan: [Quarter/Year]
### Current State
| Role | Headcount | Capacity | Gap |
|------|-----------|----------|-----|
| Backend | [X] | [Y features/quarter] | [shortfall] |
| Frontend | [X] | [Y features/quarter] | [shortfall] |
| DevOps | [X] | [Y deploys/week] | [shortfall] |
| QA | [X] | [Y tests/sprint] | [shortfall] |
### Ratios
- Engineer : Manager = 6-8 : 1
- Senior : Mid : Junior = 2 : 3 : 1
- Backend : Frontend = project-dependent
- Engineer : QA = 4-6 : 1
### Onboarding Milestones
| Day | Milestone |
|-----|-----------|
| 1 | Dev environment running, first commit |
| 7 | First PR merged |
| 14 | First feature shipped to staging |
| 30 | Independent task completion |
| 60 | Contributing to architecture discussions |
| 90 | Fully productive, mentoring others |
Team Topology Patterns Pattern When to Use Size Stream-aligned Product features 5-8 people Platform Internal tooling, infrastructure 3-5 people Enabling Coach other teams, remove blockers 2-3 people Complicated subsystem Deep expertise (ML, security) 2-4 people
Architecture Decision Records (ADR)
ADR Template # ADR-[number]: [decision title]
## Status
[Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXX]
## Context
[What is the issue? What forces are at play?]
[Include constraints, requirements, team capabilities]
## Decision
[What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?]
## Alternatives Considered
### Option A: [name]
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]
### Option B: [name]
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]
## Consequences
### Positive
- [benefit 1]
- [benefit 2]
### Negative
- [tradeoff 1]
- [tradeoff 2]
### Risks
- [risk 1]: [mitigation]
- [risk 2]: [mitigation]
## Decision Date
[YYYY-MM-DD]
## Decision Makers
[names/roles]
ADR Index ## Architecture Decision Log
| # | Decision | Status | Date | Impact |
|---|---------|--------|------|--------|
| 001 | Use PostgreSQL over MongoDB | Accepted | 2025-01-15 | High |
| 002 | Adopt microservices for billing | Accepted | 2025-02-01 | High |
| 003 | Use React over Vue | Accepted | 2025-02-15 | Medium |
| 004 | Monolith-first for MVP | Deprecated | 2025-03-01 | High |
Technology Evaluation Framework
RICE Scoring ## Technology Evaluation: [Technology Name]
### RICE Score
| Factor | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|--------|-------|--------|----------|
| **Reach** (how many people/teams affected) | [1-10] | 1x | [X] |
| **Impact** (how much improvement per person) | [1-3: minimal/medium/massive] | 2x | [X] |
| **Confidence** (how sure are we) | [50-100%] | 1x | [X] |
| **Effort** (person-months) | [X] | divisor | [X] |
**RICE Score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort = [score]**
Weighted Scoring Matrix ## Vendor/Technology Comparison
| Criteria | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| Performance | 20% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Community/support | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Learning curve | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Cost | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Scalability | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Security | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Integration | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Maturity | 5% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| **Weighted Total** | | [sum] | [sum] | [sum] |
### Recommendation: [Option X]
### Reasoning: [1-2 sentences]
Technology Evaluation Anti-Patterns Anti-Pattern Risk Dogru Yol Resume-driven development Wrong tool for the job Evaluate against actual needs Hype-driven adoption Immature ecosystem Wait for version 2.0+ Single vendor evaluation No comparison baseline Always evaluate 3+ options Ignoring exit cost Future lock-in Calculate migration cost No POC/prototype Unknown unknowns Build spike before committing
Budget Planning & TCO Analysis
TCO Template (3-Year) ## Total Cost of Ownership: [System/Technology]
### Year 1 (Setup + Operations)
| Category | Cost |
|----------|------|
| Licenses/subscriptions | $[X] |
| Infrastructure (cloud/hardware) | $[X] |
| Implementation/migration | $[X] |
| Training | $[X] |
| Integration development | $[X] |
| **Year 1 Total** | **$[X]** |
### Year 2-3 (Ongoing)
| Category | Annual Cost |
|----------|------------|
| Licenses/subscriptions (+ annual increase) | $[X] |
| Infrastructure | $[X] |
| Maintenance engineering (FTE fraction) | $[X] |
| Support contracts | $[X] |
| Upgrades/patches | $[X] |
| **Annual Ongoing** | **$[X]** |
### 3-Year TCO: $[Year 1 + Year 2 + Year 3]
### Hidden Costs (often missed)
- Context switching overhead
- On-call/incident response time
- Documentation maintenance
- Vendor management overhead
- Compliance/audit costs
Vendor Management
Vendor Assessment Checklist
Vendor Risk Matrix Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Vendor acquired/shutdown Low Critical Data export procedure, backup vendor Price increase > 30% Medium High Multi-year contract, alternative evaluation SLA breach Medium High Credits, contractual remedies Data breach at vendor Low Critical Encryption, contractual liability Feature deprecation Medium Medium API abstraction layer
Engineering Metrics
DORA Metrics Metric Elite High Medium Low Deployment Frequency On-demand (multiple/day) Daily-weekly Weekly-monthly Monthly-6monthly Lead Time for Changes < 1 hour 1 day - 1 week 1 week - 1 month 1 - 6 months Change Failure Rate 0-15% 16-30% 16-30% 16-30% Mean Time to Recovery < 1 hour < 1 day 1 day - 1 week > 1 week
SPACE Framework Dimension Metrics How to Measure S atisfactionDeveloper satisfaction survey Quarterly survey (1-5 scale) P erformanceCode review turnaround, incident resolution Tooling metrics A ctivityPRs merged, deploys, commits Git/CI data (NOT for evaluation) C ommunicationKnowledge sharing, documentation Survey + doc metrics E fficiencyDev environment setup time, build time Measure and track
Engineering Health Dashboard ## Engineering Health: [Quarter]
### DORA Metrics
| Metric | Target | Actual | Status |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Deploy frequency | Daily | [X/week] | [on/off track] |
| Lead time | < 1 day | [X hours] | [on/off track] |
| Change failure rate | < 15% | [X%] | [on/off track] |
| MTTR | < 1 hour | [X min] | [on/off track] |
### Team Health
| Area | Score (1-10) | Trend |
|------|-------------|-------|
| Developer satisfaction | [X] | [up/down/flat] |
| On-call burden | [X] | [up/down/flat] |
| Tech debt sentiment | [X] | [up/down/flat] |
| Tooling satisfaction | [X] | [up/down/flat] |
### Actionable Insights
1. [Insight + recommended action]
2. [Insight + recommended action]
Board/Investor Technical Reporting
Quarterly Tech Report Template ## Technology Report: Q[X] [Year]
### Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: key wins, risks, requests]
### Key Metrics
| Metric | Q-1 | Q0 | Target | Trend |
|--------|-----|-----|--------|-------|
| Uptime | [X%] | [X%] | 99.9% | [arrow] |
| Page load time | [Xs] | [Xs] | < 2s | [arrow] |
| Active users | [X] | [X] | [target] | [arrow] |
| Deploy frequency | [X/mo] | [X/mo] | Daily | [arrow] |
### Achievements
1. [Milestone/launch/improvement]
2. [Milestone/launch/improvement]
### Risks & Challenges
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation | Status |
|------|----------|-----------|--------|
| [risk] | [H/M/L] | [plan] | [active/mitigated] |
### Budget
| Category | Budget | Actual | Variance |
|----------|--------|--------|----------|
| Infrastructure | $[X] | $[X] | [+/-X%] |
| Licenses | $[X] | $[X] | [+/-X%] |
| Headcount | $[X] | $[X] | [+/-X%] |
### Next Quarter Focus
1. [Priority 1]
2. [Priority 2]
3. [Priority 3]
### Resource Request
[If applicable: what do we need and why]
Board Communication Anti-Patterns Anti-Pattern Neden Yanlis Dogru Yol Too much jargon Board members aren't engineers Translate to business impact Only good news Erodes trust Honest + solution-oriented No metrics Unverifiable Data-driven with trends Feature list only No business context Connect features to revenue/growth Asking for budget without ROI Unlikely approval Show expected return
02
Decision Matrix
Finance & Investment
Energy Procurement Codified expertise for electricity and gas procurement, tariff optimization, demand charge management, renewable PPA evaluation, and multi-facility energy cost management. Informed by energy procurement managers with 15+ years experience at large commercial and industrial consumers. Includes market structure analysis, hedging strategies, load profiling, and sustainability reporting frameworks. Use when procuring energy, optimizing tariffs, managing demand charges, evaluating PPAs, or developing energy strategies.
Finance & Investment
Carrier Relationship Management Codified expertise for managing carrier portfolios, negotiating freight rates, tracking carrier performance, allocating freight, and maintaining strategic carrier relationships. Informed by transportation managers with 15+ years experience. Includes scorecarding frameworks, RFP processes, market intelligence, and compliance vetting. Use when managing carriers, negotiating rates, evaluating carrier performance, or building freight strategies.