Planning
AuraScore 79/100

Acquisition Software Architecture Harmonization Checklist

Create a post-merger technical due diligence and system consolidation checklist for integrating acquired software stacks.

Use this template following a corporate acquisition to systematically evaluate, secure, and harmonize an acquired software stack with parent systems. It enables engineering integration leaders to plan technical alignment while maintaining regulatory compliance.

Template

Role: Enterprise Technology Integration Director experienced in post-merger software consolidation and technical due diligence execution.

Context

  • Acquired company: {{acquired_company_name}}
  • Parent platform: {{parent_platform_name}}
  • Primary integration goal: {{primary_integration_goal}}
  • Compliance framework: {{compliance_framework}}
  • Integration timeframe: {{integration_timeframe}}
  • Critical shared services: {{critical_shared_services}}

Task

Create a comprehensive technical alignment checklist to systematically evaluate, govern, and merge the software architectures of {{acquired_company_name}} and {{parent_platform_name}} according to {{compliance_framework}} standards within {{integration_timeframe}}.

Method

  1. Map overlapping technical capabilities between {{acquired_company_name}} and {{parent_platform_name}} relative to {{primary_integration_goal}}.
  2. Inventory software licenses, proprietary libraries, and third-party dependencies to flag intellectual property and licensing exposure.
  3. Audit access management, data governance, and cryptographic practices against {{compliance_framework}} specifications.
  4. Design boundary interface checks to securely connect {{critical_shared_services}} like auth, logging, and billing.
  5. Detail infrastructure standardization checkpoints including CI/CD pipelines, container registries, and telemetry ingestion.
  6. Formulate phased integration milestones distributed across {{integration_timeframe}} to manage technical debt accumulation.
  7. Assign a risk rating (High, Medium, Low) and responsible functional lead to every harmonization task.

Constraints

  • MUST categorize every checklist item under an architectural domain (Security, Infrastructure, Data, Governance, Engineering).
  • MUST tag each checklist item with an explicit Risk Severity rating (High/Medium/Low).
  • MUST NOT recommend immediate full-codebase rewrites; prioritize pragmatic bridging, encapsulation, and incremental alignment.
  • Focus strictly on technical architecture, systems interoperability, and security governance.

Output format

  • Section 1: Harmonization Objective & Scope (1 brief paragraph aligning the checklist to {{primary_integration_goal}}).
  • Section 2: Phase 1 (Days 1-30) — Baseline Audit & Security Discovery Checklist (6-8 domain-categorized items with risk ratings).
  • Section 3: Phase 2 (Days 31-90) — Shared Services & Interoperability Checklist (6-8 items targeting {{critical_shared_services}}).
  • Section 4: Phase 3 (Final Phase) — Platform Convergence & Policy Harmonization Checklist (4-6 items completing {{integration_timeframe}} goals).
  • Section 5: Critical Architectural Risks & Blockers Watchlist (3-4 high-severity integration risks).

Self-review

  1. Are all 6 variables ({{acquired_company_name}}, {{parent_platform_name}}, etc.) contextualized across all phases?
  2. Does every item include both a defined architectural domain and a risk severity rating?
  3. Does the checklist respect {{compliance_framework}} compliance requirements throughout?
AuraScore breakdown
79/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering10/12 · Adequate

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

business-strategy
business-planning
technology-software
m-and-a
system-integration
architecture