Choose Backstage (Software Templates + Scaffolder) when you want a governed internal developer portal that makes golden‑path service creation discoverable and wires CI/CD and catalog registration. Use Cookiecutter for quick, language‑agnostic CLI templates; Yeoman when you need complex, programmatic Node.js generators; and Port if you prefer a no‑code SaaS with lower operational overhead.
Best for lightweight, language‑agnostic CLI templating and quick service‑template repos: Cookiecutter is easy to start with and can be used standalone or inside Backstage for code generation, but lacks portal governance features.
71%
2BackstageBest when you need a full internal developer portal and governed golden path: Backstage Software Templates + Scaffolder provide catalog, self‑service creation, CI/CD wiring and discoverability, but require more setup than CLI tools.67%
3YeomanBest when you need complex, programmatic generators in the JavaScript/Node.js ecosystem: Yeoman supports composable, interactive generators for advanced scaffolding, though it lacks built‑in update/templated drift management.60%
For a true developer “golden path,” I’d choose Backstage Software Templates (Scaffolder) rather than a standalone templating engine. It combines templates with a developer portal, service catalog, ownership, docs, and integrations.
Backstage Scaffolder — best for organization-wide service creation and platform engineering.
Cookiecutter — excellent lightweight choice if you just need CLI-based project generation.
Copier — worth considering when you want templates to evolve and update existing repositories.
For a golden path, I’d structure Backstage templates around , with the template automatically creating the repo, CI, observability, catalog metadata, docs, and infrastructure. explicitly supports these multi-step templates and repository publishing.
When building a "golden path" for developers, the "best" tool depends entirely on whether you need a high-level developer portal (which orchestrates repo creation, CI/CD, and infrastructure all at once) or a low-level CLI templating engine (for generating code locally on a machine).
A comprehensive golden path usually combines an orchestration layer with a templating engine underneath.
Phase 1: The Orchestration & Portal Layer (The Golden Path Entrypoint)
Instead of asking developers to run a local terminal command, modern platform engineering utilizes a central portal where a form click triggers repo creation, registers ownership, and sets up pipelines.
Top Pick:Backstage (CNCF)
Why it’s great: Originally open-sourced by Spotify, Backstage is the de facto industry standard for internal developer platforms. Its Software Templates feature is purpose-built for golden paths.
How it works: A developer fills out a UI form in the portal (e.g., service name, owner, tier). Backstage takes those inputs, runs a templating engine, creates the GitHub/GitLab repository, injects standard boilerplate, registers the service in the Software Catalog, and even triggers the first CI/CD pipeline.
Phase 2: The Underlying Templating & Scaffolding Engines
If you are looking for the underlying engine that actually reads variables and spits out files, directories, and code structure, choose based on your ecosystem and update requirements:
Best Overall / Modern Python-backed CLI:Copier
Why it’s great: Unlike older tools, Copier (built on Jinja2) doesn't just scaffold a project once—it can update an existing project when your golden path template evolves later on. If you fix a security vulnerability or update a CI workflow in the base template, Copier can apply a clean patch upgrade to all services built from it.
The Classic Standard:Cookiecutter
Why it’s great: Language-agnostic, heavily adopted, and universally understood. If you just need a straightforward "one-and-done" generation tool to clone a folder structure and replace Jinja variables, Cookiecutter works smoothly. (Though it lacks Copier's native update mechanisms unless paired with a wrapper like Cruft).
Ecosystem-Specific Engines:
Recommended Strategy
Don't choose between a portal and a template engine—use both together:
Use Backstage as the user-facing portal where developers initiate a new service.
Power Backstage's backend actions using Copier or a git-based template repository to generate the actual code structure.
To help narrow down the exact stack you need, tell me:
What languages and frameworks are your primary microservices written in?
Do you already use an internal developer portal like Backstage , or are you starting purely from the command line / CI/CD level?
When building a golden path for a modern engineering organization, the "best" tool isn't a single isolated templating library—it's a two-layer stack:
The Orchestrator / Portal Layer (what the developer interacts with).
The Scaffolding / Template Engine Layer (what actually generates the code underneath).
The top-tier tools for each layer break down as follows:
Layer 1: The Orchestration & Portal Layer (The Golden Path UX)
Backstage (CNCF): The industry standard open-source framework (created by Spotify) for Internal Developer Portals. Its Software Templates feature is the gold standard for golden paths. It handles user input via a UI wizard, runs validation, executes backend actions (creating repos, registering in the software catalog, setting up CI/CD), and pushes code to GitHub/GitLab.
Commercial IDPs (Port, Cortex, Roadie, or Spotify's Portal for Backstage): If you don't have the dedicated platform engineering headcount to host, secure, and maintain open-source Backstage, these turnkey SaaS platforms offer the same golden-path scaffolding with managed infrastructure and built-in service catalogs.
Layer 2: The Scaffolding & Template Engines (The Engine Under the Hood)
Underneath your portal (or used standalone via CLI), you need a reliable engine to render files and directories.
Copier : Currently favored over older tools because it supports locks and updates . When you update your golden path template, Copier allows teams that already scaffolded services to pull updates cleanly without overwriting custom business logic. It relies on Jinja under the hood.
Cookiecutter : The veteran standard. It is universally understood, supports Jinja templates, and has an enormous ecosystem of existing templates and native integrations (including built-in support inside Backstage via @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend-module-cookiecutter). The downside: It’s a one-shot generator; updating an existing service downstream when the template changes is painful.
Cruft : Built on top of Cookiecutter to solve the update problem. It injects a .cruft.json file into generated repositories so you can track and re-sync template upgrades.
Nx / Plop (Monorepo-focused): If your golden path is strictly confined to a single massive monorepo (e.g., a large TypeScript/Node or multi-framework monorepo), tools like or Plop provide lightning-fast local scaffolding.
Recommendation on How to Choose
Go with Backstage + Cookiecutter/Copier if you are a mid-to-large engineering org with dedicated platform engineers who want a centralized portal, service catalog, and fully integrated self-service workflows.
Go with a standalone CLI (Copier or Cruft) if you want a lightweight solution immediately without standing up and maintaining a heavy web portal framework.
To help narrow down the exact right choice, tell me:
Are you looking for a full web portal UI or a lightweight CLI tool?
Do you need the ability to update downstream services when the master template changes?
What is your primary tech stack or infrastructure environment (e.g., Kubernetes, AWS, specific languages)?
For a developer “golden path” for creating new services, I’d generally choose Backstage Software Templates (Scaffolder) rather than a standalone templating engine.
The key distinction is that you probably don't just need file generation—you want to encode your organization's engineering standards into a repeatable workflow.
My recommendation
Use Backstage Scaffolder as the orchestration layer, with ordinary repository templates underneath.
Backstage templates can:
Ask developers for structured inputs such as service name, owner, language, runtime, deployment target, and data dependencies.
Generate a repository from a skeleton.
Apply your organization's conventions.
Create the GitHub/GitLab repository.
Configure CI/CD and other integrations.
Register the new service in the Backstage software catalog.
Run custom actions for things like provisioning infrastructure or opening pull requests.
Give developers a UI rather than requiring them to remember a complicated CLI command.
That makes it much closer to a golden-path platform than something like Cookiecutter or Yeoman alone.
Developer
│
▼
"Create a Service"
│
├── Service name
├── Language/runtime
├── Team/owner
├── API type
├── Database?
└── Deployment environment
│
▼
Backstage Scaffolder
│
├── Generate repository
├── Add standard CI/CD
├── Add observability
├── Add security tooling
├── Add Docker/K8s config
├── Provision required resources
├── Create repo
└── Register in catalog
│
▼
"Your service is ready"
The important part is that the template shouldn't merely create boilerplate. It should establish the complete path from "I want a service" to "I have a service deployed according to our standards."
How the alternatives compare
Tool
Best suited for
Golden-path fit
Backstage Scaffolder
Developer portals + complete workflows
Excellent
Cookiecutter
Simple project/file templating
Good
Yeoman
Programmable CLI generators
Good
Yeoman, for example, is explicitly designed for language-agnostic project scaffolding and can generate entire services or individual components.
But that's where I'd draw the line:
Templating engine = implementation detail.
Golden path = developer experience + standards + automation.
Backstage is designed around the latter: its Software Catalog, Templates, documentation, and integrations are intended to provide a consistent developer experience across an organization's software ecosystem.
One important design choice
Don't make one giant service-template.
I'd create a small number of opinionated service archetypes, for example:
Create Service
│
├── HTTP API
│ ├── Go
│ ├── Java
│ └── TypeScript
│
├── Worker / Consumer
│ ├── Go
│ └── Python
│
├── Scheduled Job
│
└── Frontend
Each template should come with the boring-but-important stuff automatically:
CI
linting/formatting
unit/integration test setup
containerization
deployment configuration
secrets handling
logging/metrics/tracing
ownership metadata
documentation
dependency/update automation
security scanning
health checks
standard local-development setup
Then make the happy path the easiest path.
Backstage's templates support multi-step forms and actions, so you can put organization-specific logic around the generated skeleton instead of forcing developers to manually perform all those steps.
If you don't want Backstage
If you already have a developer portal and only need the actual templating mechanism, I'd look at Copier or Cookiecutter first. If you want a highly programmable CLI generator, Yeoman is another established option.
But if the question is specifically "What should we build our company's golden path on?", I'd start with:
Backstage + Scaffolder + Git repositories containing versioned service templates + your CI/CD/infrastructure APIs.
That gives you a path from template → repository → infrastructure → deployment → catalog, rather than just template → files.
If by “golden path” you mean developers answer a few questions and get a production-ready service repo with the right defaults, CI, observability, deployment config, ownership metadata, etc., I’d separate the problem into scaffolding UX and template engine.
My default choice: Backstage Software Templates
For an organization-wide service golden path, I’d start with Backstage Scaffolder rather than a standalone templating engine.
Backstage templates let you define a YAML workflow with:
Input forms — service name, language, runtime, owner, database, deployment target, etc.
Templated source files
Conditional logic
Custom actions
Repository creation
CI/CD setup
Catalog registration
Links/outputs back to the developer
The important distinction is that Backstage is not merely “copy this directory.” It can make the entire service creation workflow a standardized path.
For example:
Developer
│
▼
"Create Service"
│
├── Service name
├── Language: Go / Python / TypeScript
├── Runtime: Kubernetes / Lambda
├── Database: None / Postgres
└── Owner: Team X
│
▼
Scaffolder
│
├── Generate repo
├── Configure CI
├── Configure deployment
├── Add observability
├── Add CODEOWNERS
├── Register in catalog
└── Create initial PR/repo
Backstage also has a CLI for executing and dry-running templates, which is useful for testing and automation outside the UI.
How I'd choose among the alternatives
Tool
Best fit
Golden-path capability
Backstage Scaffolder
Platform engineering / many teams
Excellent
Cookiecutter
Simple repo/project templates
Good
Yeoman
Cookiecutter is wonderfully simple: a directory of templates plus variables and optional pre/post-generation hooks. It's a great choice if your requirement is essentially “generate this repo structure.”
Yeoman is more programmable and language-agnostic, with generators that can implement arbitrary workflows.
Nx is particularly compelling if your organization is already standardized on Nx/TypeScript. Its generators can create projects and subsequently modify existing projects while enforcing conventions.
The architecture I'd actually build
I'd avoid making the template itself responsible for everything.
Infrastructure modules
→ reusable Terraform/Crossplane/etc. building blocks
Policy
→ enforce things that must be true rather than merely putting them in the template.
That last point is important. A golden path shouldn't be:
“Here's a repo containing 400 files that developers shouldn't touch.”
It should be:
“Here's the easiest way to create a service that already conforms to our platform.”
And I'd keep the templates relatively thin. For example, rather than baking your entire Kubernetes configuration into every generated repo, generate a small service declaration and let your platform machinery provide the common infrastructure.
One particularly useful pattern
I'd have multiple golden paths, rather than one giant “New Service” template:
The template should give developers a working service on day one, including health checks, structured logging, metrics/tracing hooks, tests, CI, local development, deployment configuration, ownership, and documentation.
So, in short:
If you're building an internal developer platform: Backstage Scaffolder.If you just need a lightweight template generator: Cookiecutter.If you're already deeply invested in Nx: Nx generators.If you need an extremely programmable language-agnostic generator: Yeoman.
The key decision isn't really the templating syntax—it's whether your “golden path” is merely project generation or a full service-provisioning workflow. For the latter, Backstage is much closer to the right abstraction.
Choosing the "best" scaffolding or templating engine for a developer golden path depends entirely on where you are starting from and how complex your automation needs to be . A golden path isn’t just a file template; it’s a workflow that provisions repos, injects CI/CD pipelines, registers services in a catalog, and configures cloud resources.
The top options span from simple command-line file generators to full-blown internal developer portals:
1. The Enterprise Portal Standard:
If you are building a centralized Internal Developer Platform (IDP) and want a polished UI where developers click "Create Service," fill out a form, and magically get a fully configured GitHub repo, CI/CD pipeline, and registry entry, Backstage is the industry heavyweight.
How it works: Uses the Backstage Scaffolder , which accepts inputs via a UI form and executes a chain of actions (copying templates, running cookiecutter , pushing to GitHub/GitLab, registering the component in the software catalog).
Best for: Medium-to-large engineering orgs that want a single portal for service cataloging, documentation, and self-service creation.
Pros: Highly extensible, forces organizational consistency, abstracts away Git and CI/CD complexity from the developer.
Cons: High setup and maintenance overhead; it is a framework, not an out-of-the-box tool.
2. The Modern CLI & Update Engine: Copier (or Cookiecutter)
If you want a lightweight, Git-based command-line approach rather than a massive web portal, copier is the modern choice. While cookiecutter is famous for one-time scaffolding, copier adds a superpower: updatability.
How it works: Uses Jinja templates to generate a project structure. When you update your organization's golden path template (e.g., adding a new security scanner to the CI pipeline), developers can run copier update in their existing repositories to pull down upstream structural changes cleanly.
Best for: Smaller teams, or platform teams bootstrapping a golden path before investing in a portal like Backstage.
Pros: Easy to write, version-controlled via Git tags, and solves the notoriously difficult problem of propagating template updates to older microservices.
Cons: Purely CLI-based; doesn't natively handle external infrastructure orchestration (like creating AWS RDS instances or IAM roles) without custom scripting.
3. The Infrastructure-First Approach: Crossplane or Terraform/OpenTofu Modules
If your "golden path" is primarily about spinning up cloud infrastructure alongside the application code:
How it works: Instead of just templating code files, you define composite cloud resources. A developer request triggers an Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) pipeline that provisions the repo and the backing databases, networking, and Kubernetes namespaces.
Best for: Platform engineering teams deeply embedded in Kubernetes or cloud-native infrastructure.
Pros: Tight integration with actual runtime environments; ensures infrastructure guardrails are met on day zero.
Cons: Heavy learning curve; overkill if you just need boilerplate code templates.
Which one should you pick?
Go with Copier if you want something lightweight, fast to implement, and purely focused on project file structures and keeping them updated.
Go with Backstage Software Templates if you have multiple teams, need a centralized developer portal, and want to tie code scaffolding directly to Github/GitLab creation, Jira tickets, and service catalog registration.
To help narrow down the exact fit, tell me:
Are you looking for a CLI tool or a centralized developer portal (UI)?
What does your current stack look like (e.g., GitHub/GitLab, Kubernetes, AWS/GCP)?
If you're building an internal golden path for creating services, I'd separate the problem into two layers:
Scaffolding/orchestration: what developers interact with to create a service.
Templating: how the actual repository/files are generated.
My default choice: Backstage Scaffolder
For an organization-wide golden path, I'd start with Backstage Software Templates (Scaffolder) rather than using a templating engine alone.
Backstage lets you define a template with a form, parameters, and a sequence of actions. It can generate the repository, publish it to GitHub/GitLab, register the component in the catalog, and perform other setup steps.
That distinction is important: Cookiecutter/Copier generate files; Backstage can implement an entire service-creation workflow.
A typical golden path could be:
Developer
│
▼
"Create Service"
│
├── Service name
├── Language: Go / Python / TypeScript
├── Runtime: Kubernetes / Lambda / etc.
├── Database: none / Postgres
└── Team / owner
│
▼
Backstage Scaffolder
│
├── Generate repository
├── Configure CI/CD
├── Add Dockerfile
├── Add observability
├── Add security defaults
├── Create deployment manifests
├── Register in service catalog
└── Create initial PR/repository
│
▼
Production-ready service
Backstage's templates are YAML-defined workflows, and its scaffolder supports custom actions, permissions, template testing/dry runs, and integration with external systems.
How I'd choose among the main options
Tool
Best fit
Key characteristic
Backstage Scaffolder
Company-wide golden path
Workflow + UI + catalog + integrations
Copier
Template-driven engineering org
Strong template lifecycle/update story
Cookiecutter
Simple, CLI-oriented scaffolding
Copier is particularly interesting if your primary problem is keeping generated services synchronized with an evolving template. It explicitly supports updating existing projects as templates evolve, rather than only creating them.
Cookiecutter is excellent if you want something lightweight: templates can be repositories and can generate projects in essentially any language, including Go microservices.
The architecture I'd recommend
If you're serious about the golden path, I'd actually use:
Backstage + your own versioned service templates + opinionated automation
rather than trying to find a single "best templating engine."
Then make the template responsible for defaults, not every possible customization.
The golden path should ideally give a developer:
One command/form → one repository → deployable service with all organizational plumbing already wired up.
The most important design decision isn't actually the templating syntax. It's deciding which things developers shouldn't have to make decisions about anymore: CI, deployment, ownership metadata, logging, metrics, tracing, security scanning, dependency updates, documentation, health checks, etc.
If you tell me your stack (e.g. Kubernetes + GitHub + Go/TypeScript/Python + Terraform/ArgoCD), I can sketch a concrete golden-path architecture and show what the Backstage template would look like.
When building a "golden path" for service creation, the "best" choice depends entirely on your team's scale, appetite for maintenance , and whether you need pure file templating or a full self-service developer portal (IDP).
The ecosystem breaks down into three distinct tiers: the Portal Frameworks (Day-1 creation + Day-2 operations), the Dedicated Managed Portals, and the File-Level Scaffolding Engines.
Tier 1: The Golden Standard for Portals (Scaffolder + Catalog)
Best if you want a complete portal experience where templates tie directly into software catalogs and infrastructure actions.
Backstage (Open Source / CNCF): Created by Spotify, this is the de facto standard for building internal developer portals. Its built-in Scaffolder uses cookiecutter or templating actions to spin up a repo, register it in the software catalog, and hook into your CI/CD.
The Catch: It is a framework, not an out-of-the-box product. Expect to dedicate 1–3 engineers just to maintain, upgrade, and write plugins for it.
Managed Backstage Alternatives (Roadie or Red Hat Developer Hub): If you love the Backstage ecosystem (scaffolder + plugins) but don't want the maintenance burden, managed options take care of hosting and plugin stability.
Best if you want golden paths and service scorecards up and running in days without managing a Node.js/React framework.
Port: Highly visual, data-driven developer portal with robust action-runners that trigger scaffolding workflows. Excellent if your golden paths provision actual cloud resources.
Cortex or OpsLevel: Fantastic for tying golden path templates directly to production maturity standards, scorecards, and service ownership tracking.
Best if you just want to generate file structures via CLI or small internal tools without setting up a massive web portal.
Copier: Python-based and currently one of the favorite file-scaffolding tools because it handles updates . Unlike traditional generators that only work on Day 1, Copier can commit updates back to repositories when your golden path template evolves over time.
Cookiecutter: The classic, battle-tested standard for project templates across languages. Simple, reliable, but lacks native mechanisms for updating existing projects when the template changes.
Cruft: Wraps around Cookiecutter to allow updating existing projects from the original template (similar to what Copier does natively).
: The older JavaScript-ecosystem standby. Powerful generator ecosystem, though slightly dated compared to modern Python/Go-based CLI template runners.
Recommendation: Which should you pick?
Go with Backstage if you are a mid-to-large engineering organization with dedicated platform engineers who want a customizable, centralized hub where templates are just one part of a larger service catalog.
Go with a managed platform like Port or Roadie if you want the power of a golden path portal immediately without hiring a team to maintain a React/TypeScript monolith.
Go with Copier if you are a smaller team or just starting out, and you want a pure CLI-driven approach to generate and maintain repo boilerplates without deploying a portal backend.
To help narrow this down, tell me:
What is your approximate engineering team size?
Do your golden paths need to provision cloud infrastructure (AWS/K8s/DBs) or just generate code repositories?
Building a golden path for service creation requires separating the templating layer (how files are generated) from the orchestration layer (how the repo, CI/CD, and infrastructure are provisioned).
The industry standard approach is a layered stack rather than a single tool. Here is a breakdown of the best options for the templating engine and the portal orchestration layer.
Phase 1: The Core Templating Engine (File Generation)
These tools handle the variable substitution, directory structure, and conditional logic when a developer kicks off a new service.
Cookiecutter
Best for: Universal, language-agnostic templating.
Pros: The de facto standard. Massive community, supports any programming language, and has built-in support in major platforms (like Backstage).
Cons: Fire-and-forget. Once a template is generated, it’s hard to propagate updates or bug fixes from the master template down to existing services.
Copier (or Cruft)
Best for: Updatable/maintainable templates.
Pros: Built on Jinja, but solves Cookiecutter’s biggest flaw: lifecycle management . Copier embeds a state file in the generated repository so that when your golden path template evolves (e.g., you update security policies or CI pipelines), developers can cleanly pull/merge those updates into existing services.
Cons: Slightly steeper learning curve than basic Cookiecutter.
Nx / Yeoman / Plop
Best for: Monorepos or deeply opinionated frontend/full-stack ecosystems.
Pros: Great if you are heavily localized inside a specific ecosystem (like TypeScript/Node for Nx, or internal component libraries via Plop).
Cons: Overkill or awkward if your services span multiple disjointed languages and infrastructure tools.
Phase 2: The Portal & Orchestration Layer (The Golden Path UI)
A raw CLI template is only half the battle. To make it a true "golden path," developers need a self-service UI that connects the template to GitHub/GitLab, registers ownership, and spins up pipelines.
Backstage (by Spotify / CNCF)
The Verdict: The heavyweight champion for enterprise developer portals.
Why use it: Its built-in Software Templates (Scaffolder) lets you write a template definition (template.yaml ) that prompts the user via a UI form, executes a templating engine (like Cookiecutter), creates the GitHub/GitLab repo, registers the component in the Software Catalog, and triggers an initial CI/CD run.
Check it out: Explore the Backstage Software Templates Guide to see how the scaffolder workflow functions.
Port / OpsLevel / Cortex
The Verdict: SaaS-based internal developer portals.
If you don't want to host and maintain a massive Node/React infrastructure like Backstage, platforms like offer faster time-to-value with flexible data models and action orchestration.
The Recommended Setup
For a lightweight start: Use Copier paired with a simple CLI or internal Makefile wrapper. It keeps your templates maintainable across services without heavy infrastructure.
For an enterprise-grade IDP: Use Backstage as your single pane of glass, leveraging its native scaffolding actions powered underneath by Cookiecutter or custom shell actions.
To help narrow this down, tell me:
Are you looking for a CLI-only approach or a full web portal UI (like Backstage)?
What languages/frameworks will your primary service templates target?
If your goal is a true developer “golden path”—not just generating boilerplate—I’d choose Backstage Scaffolder as the orchestration layer, with templates stored in Git.
My recommendation
Backstage + Scaffolder + Git-based templates is the strongest default for an internal platform team.
Backstage's Scaffolder lets you define a service template with:
A form for developers to provide things like service name, owner, language, database, deployment target, etc.
File generation from templates.
Automated repository creation.
CI/CD setup.
Infrastructure provisioning.
Registration in the software catalog.
Custom actions for your organization's internal tooling.
So instead of:
"Run this CLI, copy this repo, edit these 14 files..."
you get:
Create Service → Python/Go/Node → PostgreSQL? → Deploy to Kubernetes → Create
and the platform handles the rest.
Cookiecutter is particularly good if all you need is "answer a few questions and generate a repo." It is language/framework agnostic and supports generation hooks.
Copier is more interesting if you want templates to remain connected to the projects they created. Its standout feature is lifecycle management: a template can evolve and consumers can update their generated projects from newer template versions.
But the Scaffolder workflow should also be able to:
Create the Git repository.
Configure branch protection.
Create CI/CD.
Register the service.
Provision cloud resources.
Configure secrets.
Create monitoring/alerting.
Add ownership metadata.
Produce links back to all those systems.
That's where Backstage becomes considerably more powerful than Cookiecutter.
Backstage also supports custom actions and authorization around template parameters/steps, which is useful once your golden path starts touching production infrastructure.
One important distinction
I'd think of the stack as:
Backstage = developer experience/orchestration
Scaffolder = workflow
Template engine = file generation
Terraform/Pulumi/etc. = infrastructure
GitHub/GitLab = source control + CI
Don't try to make a template engine do all four jobs.
If you're starting from scratch and don't already have Backstage, though, I wouldn't automatically deploy it just because it's popular. For a small engineering organization, Copier + a thin internal CLI can give you 80% of the value with substantially less infrastructure.
Rule of thumb:
< ~20 developers / few service types: Copier or Cookiecutter + CLI
20–100 developers / growing platform team: Backstage Scaffolder starts making a lot of sense
100+ developers / many teams, services, environments: Backstage or a managed Backstage offering is my strong preference
And I'd lean Copier over Cookiecutter if you expect your golden paths to evolve significantly after services have been created.
If you tell me your language stack (e.g. Go/Java/TypeScript), cloud (AWS/Azure/GCP), Kubernetes usage, and Git provider, I can sketch a concrete golden-path architecture and repository structure.
Scaffolder = workflow
Template engine = file generation
Terraform/Pulumi/etc. = infrastructure
GitHub/GitLab = source control + CI
Don't try to make a template engine do all four jobs.
If you're starting from scratch and don't already have Backstage, though, I wouldn't automatically deploy it just because it's popular. For a small engineering organization, Copier + a thin internal CLI can give you 80% of the value with substantially less infrastructure.
Rule of thumb:
< ~20 developers / few service types: Copier or Cookiecutter + CLI
20–100 developers / growing platform team: Backstage Scaffolder starts making a lot of sense
100+ developers / many teams, services, environments: Backstage or a managed Backstage offering is my strong preference
And I'd lean Copier over Cookiecutter if you expect your golden paths to evolve significantly after services have been created.
