Skill: wodeking/vke-decision-workflow (version 1.0.0)

--- name: vke-decision-workflow description: Build VKE evidence-led decision workflows and business knowledge products from a request. Use when OpenClaw or Codex needs to create or update VKE case artifacts such as problem briefs, research plans, evidence ledgers, analysis notes, red-team reviews, commercial decision reports, watchlists, and retrospectives. --- # VKE Decision Workflow ## Overview Use this skill to turn an ambiguous knowledge request into a traceable decision package. The workflow is evidence-led: separate facts, judgments, and assumptions; bind every core judgment to evidence IDs and confidence; use red-team review before producing the final business report. The standard artifact sequence is: 1. `00_request.md` - original request 2. `01_problem-brief.md` - decision framing 3. `02_research-plan.md` - resource and evidence plan 4. `03_evidence-ledger.csv` - evidence table 5. `04_analysis-notes.md` - reasoning notes 6. `05_red-team-review.md` - adversarial review 7. `06_knowledge-product.md` - decision product or commercial report 8. `07_watchlist.md` - monitoring indicators 9. `08_retrospective.md` - process review Read `references/artifact-templates.md` when creating or rewriting any artifact. ## Operating Rules - Do not change source case files unless the user asks to update them. - Preserve user-provided evidence boundaries. If the user says not to add external facts, only use the supplied ledger, notes, and files. - Treat evidence relevance and reliability separately. A reliable source with low relevance cannot support a strong conclusion. - Keep the decision question visible. Every artifact should serve the user's decision, not become general research. - Distinguish facts, judgments, and assumptions: - Fact: what a source or evidence record says. - Judgment: what those facts imply for the decision. - Assumption: a necessary but not yet proven condition. - Attach confidence to each core judgment, not only to the whole report. - Prefer conservative wording when evidence is indirect, adjacent, or low relevance. - Red-team before finalizing the knowledge product. ## Workflow ### 1. Frame the Problem Create or update `01_problem-brief.md`. Capture: - core decision question - decision use - known facts - key uncertainties - scope boundaries - success criteria - deadline or time horizon Convert vague interest into a decision form such as: "Should we invest, enter, pause, continue observing, or run a limited validation?" ### 2. Plan Research and Resources Create or update `02_research-plan.md`. Specify: - hypotheses to verify - evidence types and priority - expert/resource needs - institution or center-of-excellence types - databases and public sources - tools and search paths - validation priorities - likely source bias Use resource planning to avoid over-collecting background information. ### 3. Build the Evidence Ledger Create or update `03_evidence-ledger.csv`. Use stable evidence IDs such as `EVD-001`. Required fields: ```csv evidence_id,case_id,claim_supported,evidence_summary,source_id,source_name,source_date,collection_date,evidence_type,reliability,relevance,confidence_effect,notes ``` For each row, state what the evidence can support and what it cannot support. Mark reliability and relevance independently as `高`, `中`, or `低`. ### 4. Write Analysis Notes Create or update `04_analysis-notes.md`. Structure each major claim as: - judgment - evidence used - reasoning chain - alternative explanation - confidence - remaining verification Use the pattern: ```text Evidence -> intermediate inference -> alternative explanation filter -> decision judgment -> confidence ``` Do not let evidence volume substitute for evidence quality. ### 5. Red-Team the Judgment Create or update `05_red-team-review.md`. Actively challenge the preferred conclusion: - Is the main judgment sufficiently supported? - Is there selective evidence? - Are negative or ambiguous signals ignored? - Are stronger alternative explanations available? - Which assumption is most fragile? - Should confidence be lowered? - What evidence would improve judgment quality? Lead with the strongest objections, not the conclusion. ### 6. Produce the Knowledge Product Create or update `06_knowledge-product.md`. For business decisions, use a commercial report structure: 1. Core conclusion and executive summary 2. Evidence chain and confidence 3. Analysis and counter-arguments 4. Business boundaries and impact assessment 5. Action plan and dynamic triggers Requirements: - Start with a one-sentence conclusion. - Separate core facts, judgments, and assumptions. - Cite evidence IDs in facts, evidence tables, reasoning, and counter-arguments. - Mark confidence for each core judgment. - Include uncertainty, alternative explanations, action matrix, and monitoring indicators. - Avoid adding facts outside the approved evidence set. ### 7. Create a Watchlist Create or update `07_watchlist.md`. Translate the report into monitorable indicators: - indicator - why it matters - source - frequency - trigger condition - action after trigger - status Make watchlist items capable of raising, lowering, or redirecting the decision. ### 8. Write the Retrospective Create or update `08_retrospective.md`. Capture: - whether the original question was answered - most valuable sources - noisy or misleading sources - reusable analysis methods - assumptions needing verification - how to go faster next time - resources to add to the pool - templates to preserve ## Confidence Rubric - `高`: direct, reliable, relevant, and corroborated evidence; few plausible counter-explanations. - `中`: useful evidence exists, but some pieces are indirect, adjacent, or not independently verified. - `低`: evidence is sparse, indirect, or dependent on unverified assumptions. - `低到中`: enough evidence for cautious action or limited validation, not enough for full commitment. ## Output Style - Use Chinese when the case artifacts are Chinese unless the user requests otherwise. - Keep executive summaries short and decision-oriented. - Use tables for ledgers, evidence summaries, action matrices, and triggers. - Preserve evidence IDs exactly across artifacts. - Prefer "current evidence supports..." over categorical claims when confidence is not high.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal:  | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)