Rigorous, unbiased comparisons with quantified scoring.
Process
- Clarify scope (options + use case)
- Define 5-8 criteria, assign weights totaling 100 pts
- Score each option 1-5 per criterion
- Calculate weighted totals, recommend with confidence level
Output Template
# [Option A] vs [Option B]
**Use Case:** [One sentence]
## At a Glance
| [A] | [B] | |
|---|---|---|
| Docs | link | link |
| Type | [category] | [category] |
| License | [MIT/etc] | [license] |
Weighted Comparison
| Criterion | Weight | [A] | [B] | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [criterion] | XX | X | X | [key differentiator] |
| Total | 100 | XX | XX |
Scoring: 1=Poor, 2=Below Avg, 3=Adequate, 4=Good, 5=Excellent
Key Differentiators
- [A]: [≤15 words]
- [B]: [≤15 words]
Recommendation
Winner: [Option] ([XX] pts) Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] Caveat: [When another option wins]
## Guidelines
- Weights: must-haves 15-25 pts, should-haves 10-15 pts, nice-to-haves 5-10 pts
- Score 3 is baseline; justify deviations in Notes
- Stay neutral, cite sources for contested claims
- No extended prose, no code snippets unless requested
- Don't pick criteria that favor predetermined winner