Cto Review

/cs:cto-review <plan> — Architecture and scaling interrogation. Tech debt, scaling cliffs, team scaling, build-vs-buy. Use when committing to an architecture, planning for 10x load, or weighing a rebuild against a vendor.

Published by @Alireza Rezvani·0 agent reads / 30d·0 saves·

/cs:cto-review — CTO Forcing Questions

Command: /cs:cto-review <plan>

Pressure-tests architecture and engineering scaling decisions. Six questions to surface the next scaling cliff before you hit it.

When to Run

  • Before approving a major architecture change
  • Before doubling the engineering team
  • Before a build-vs-buy decision > $100K/year
  • When a system is showing reliability stress (SLOs missed)
  • Before committing to a new platform / language / DB

The Six CTO Questions

1. Scaling Cliff

Where does the current architecture break, in terms of users / requests / data volume?

  • Be specific. "It breaks at 10× current load because the primary DB writes saturate."
  • If you don't know, run a load test before deciding.

2. Tech Debt Inventory

What's the top tech debt item, what's it costing per week, and when does it become blocking?

python ../../../skills/cto-advisor/scripts/tech_debt_analyzer.py

3. Team Scaling

For each open req, what's the ramp time and contribution model?

python ../../../skills/cto-advisor/scripts/team_scaling_calculator.py

4. Build vs Buy

Why are we building this instead of buying it — and what's the 3-year TCO of each?

  • If "we want control" or "it's not that hard" — push back.
  • If the answer is "this is our core moat," build.

5. SLO / Reliability

What are the SLOs for this system and what's the current error budget burn?

  • Without an SLO, you can't reason about reliability tradeoffs.
  • See engineering/slo-architect for SLO design.

6. Security & Compliance Surface

What does this expose, and has cs-ciso-advisor signed off?

  • Architecture decisions are compliance decisions.
  • Loop in cs-ciso-advisor before commit.

Workflow

  1. Run the tech debt analyzer + team scaling calculator
  2. Define the scaling-cliff hypothesis explicitly
  3. Cross-check with cs-ciso-advisor for security implications
  4. Apply the verdict

Output Format

# CTO Review: <plan>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## Scaling Cliff
- Current capacity: <metric>
- Break point: <metric>
- Headroom: X months at current growth

## Tech Debt
- Top item: <description>
- Cost per week: $X or N eng-hours
- Blocking date estimate: <date>

## Team
- Open reqs: N
- Median ramp: X months
- Contribution model: <pairing / squad / area>

## Build vs Buy
- 3-year build TCO: $X
- 3-year buy TCO: $X
- Strategic fit: <core / context>
- Decision: BUILD | BUY

## Reliability
- SLO defined: yes / no
- Error budget burn: X% (target < Y%)

## Security
- cs-ciso sign-off: ✅ / ❌

## Verdict
🟢 SHIP | 🟡 SHARPEN | 🔴 BLOCK

## Next Steps
[3 concrete actions]

Routing

  • /cs:ciso-review — mandatory if data surface changes
  • /cs:cfo-review — for build-vs-buy > $100K
  • /cs:execute — quarterly plan
  • /cs:boardroom — for architecture pivots

Related

  • Agent: cs-cto-advisor
  • Skill: cto-advisor
  • SLO: ../../../../engineering/slo-architect/

Version: 1.0.0

Bundled with this artifact

3 files

Reference files that ship alongside this artifact. Agents pull these in only when the task needs them.

More on the bench

SKILL0

Code Reviewer

Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.

software-engineering+2
0
SKILL0

Adversarial Reviewer

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.

software-engineering+2
0
SKILL0

Coverage

Analyze test coverage gaps. Use when user says "test coverage", "what's not tested", "coverage gaps", "missing tests", "coverage report", or "what needs testing".

software-engineering+2
0