Skill: jseale/decision-engine-lite (version 1.0.0)

--- name: Decision Engine Lite slug: decision-engine-lite version: 1.0.0 description: > Structured decision-making for high-stakes choices. Classify your decision by type, run a focused pro/con analysis, and stress-test it with a simple pre-mortem exercise. Free version — upgrade for the full framework library (OODA, Eisenhower, second-order thinking), bias detection, and organizational decision policies. author: OpenClaw Skills tags: [decision-making, strategy, frameworks, leadership, free] metadata: emoji: 🎯 requires: tools: [] os: [linux, darwin, win32] --- # Decision Engine Lite > *"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."* — Theodore Roosevelt **🧠 Want the full framework library with bias detection and decision policies?** **Full version → [agentofalpha.com](https://agentofalpha.com)** --- ## What This Skill Does Brings structure to high-stakes decisions so you stop going in circles. Classify the decision, surface the real tradeoffs, and stress-test it before you commit. **Included in Lite:** - ✅ Decision classification (4 types — know how much rigor to apply) - ✅ Structured pro/con framework (weighted, not just a list) - ✅ Simple pre-mortem exercise (find the hidden risks before they find you) - ✅ Clear next-step recommendation **Upgrade to Full for:** - ❌ Full framework library (OODA loop, Eisenhower matrix, RICE scoring, Regret Minimization, Opportunity Cost, Bayesian updating, and more) - ❌ Cognitive bias detection checklist (15 biases with specific mitigations) - ❌ Group decision-making (RAPID framework, disagree-and-commit protocol) - ❌ Scenario planning with expected value calculations - ❌ Organizational decision policies (convert recurring decisions into rules) - ❌ Decision quality scoring rubric (100-point framework) - ❌ Decision record templates and decision log --- ## How to Use Tell me the decision you're facing. Include: - What you're deciding - The options you're considering - Any constraints (budget, timeline, must-haves) - What's at stake if you get it wrong I'll run you through the framework. --- ## Phase 1: Decision Classification Before applying any framework, classify the decision. This tells you how much time and rigor to invest. ### The 4 Decision Types | Type | Reversibility | Stakes | How to Decide | |------|-------------|--------|---------------| | **Type 1** — One-Way Door | Hard or impossible to reverse | High | Slow down. Full analysis. Get it right. | | **Type 2** — Two-Way Door | Easily reversible | Low-Medium | Decide fast. Bias to action. You can course-correct. | | **Type 3** — Recurring | Varies | Varies | Build a rule. Stop deciding this over and over. | | **Type 4** — Delegatable | Reversible | Low | Hand it off. You shouldn't be deciding this at all. | ### Classification Questions Ask yourself: 1. **If this goes wrong, can we fix it within 30 days at reasonable cost?** → Yes = Type 2 2. **Is the cost of being wrong more than 10× the cost of analysis?** → Yes = Type 1 3. **Have we made this exact decision 3+ times before?** → Yes = Type 3 (build a policy) 4. **Does someone closer to the work have better information to decide this?** → Yes = Type 4 ### Delegation Test (Type 4 criteria) Delegate when ALL of these are true: - The decision is reversible within an acceptable window - The downside is less than 5% of the relevant budget or resource - Someone closer to the problem can decide better than you - Speed matters more than perfection here ### What classification tells you - **Type 1**: Don't rush. Run the full pre-mortem. Get outside perspective. - **Type 2**: Decide now with the information you have. Don't let analysis paralysis set in. - **Type 3**: The answer is a policy, not a decision. Stop solving this individually. - **Type 4**: Delegate and move on. Deciding this yourself is a poor use of your judgment. --- ## Phase 2: Structured Pro/Con Analysis A basic pro/con list is weak because all factors are treated as equal. This version weights them. ### Step 1: List the Options Name each option clearly. If you only have one option and one "status quo," that's fine — write both down. ### Step 2: Define Criteria What actually matters for this decision? List 3-6 criteria. Examples: - Financial impact - Speed of execution - Risk level - Alignment with long-term goals - Team/stakeholder impact - Reversibility **Assign a weight to each criterion (1-5):** - 5 = Critical — a bad score here could be a dealbreaker - 3 = Important — matters but won't make or break the decision - 1 = Nice to have — relevant but minor ### Step 3: Score Each Option Score each option against each criterion (1-10): - 9-10: Excellent - 7-8: Strong - 5-6: Acceptable - 3-4: Below average - 1-2: Poor / major concern **Calculate:** Weighted score = Σ (criterion weight × option score) ### Step 4: Gut Check After calculating scores — **how do you feel about the winner?** If the math says Option A but your gut says Option B, that's data. Name the feeling. Ask: "What criterion did I underweight or miss?" Your gut is not infallible, but it often detects factors you haven't articulated yet. ### Output Format ``` Decision: [What we're deciding] Criteria & Weights: - [Criterion 1]: Weight X/5 - [Criterion 2]: Weight X/5 - [Criterion 3]: Weight X/5 Scoring: | Criterion (Weight) | Option A | Option B | |--------------------|----------|----------| | [Criterion 1] (×X) | X | X | | [Criterion 2] (×X) | X | X | | [Criterion 3] (×X) | X | X | | **Weighted Total** | **XX** | **XX** | Winner by score: [Option] Gut check: [Does the winner feel right? Any flag?] ``` --- ## Phase 3: Pre-Mortem Exercise This is the most important step most people skip. ### How It Works **Imagine it's 12 months from now. You made this decision. It failed spectacularly.** Not a minor setback — a real failure. What went wrong? ### The Exercise **Step 1: Write failure scenarios** List 5-7 specific ways this decision could go badly. Don't be optimistic — be honest. Think about: - What assumptions could prove wrong? - What external factors could change? - What internal execution risks exist? - What might you have underestimated? **Step 2: Rate each scenario** For each failure scenario: - **Likelihood**: Low / Medium / High - **Impact if it happens**: Minor / Significant / Catastrophic - **Detectability**: Would you see it coming, or only after it's too late? **Step 3: Focus on High + Catastrophic** Any scenario rated "High likelihood + Significant/Catastrophic impact" needs a mitigation plan or needs to change your decision. **Step 4: Update your decision** After the pre-mortem: - Does any failure scenario change which option you pick? - Can you add safeguards that reduce your biggest risks? - Are there go/no-go criteria you should set in advance? ("If X happens within 90 days, we reverse the decision") ### Pre-Mortem Output Format ``` Pre-Mortem: [Decision] Failure Scenarios: 1. [Scenario] | Likelihood: [L/M/H] | Impact: [Minor/Significant/Catastrophic] → Mitigation: [How to reduce likelihood or damage] 2. [Scenario] | Likelihood: [L/M/H] | Impact: [Minor/Significant/Catastrophic] → Mitigation: [How to reduce likelihood or damage] [Continue for each scenario] Kill Criteria (set in advance): - If [observable signal], we reverse or pivot by [date] Updated Confidence: [Do you feel better or worse about the decision after this exercise?] ``` --- ## Putting It Together ### Final Recommendation Output ```markdown ## Decision: [Clear statement of what we're deciding] **Classification:** Type [1/2/3/4] — [One-way door / Two-way door / Recurring / Delegatable] **Urgency:** [How quickly does this need to be decided?] --- ### Options Considered - Option A: [Brief description] - Option B: [Brief description] [Additional options if any] --- ### Weighted Analysis [Table from Phase 2] **Score winner:** Option [X] with [XX] vs [XX] --- ### Pre-Mortem Summary **Top risks identified:** 1. [Biggest risk + mitigation] 2. [Second risk + mitigation] **Kill criteria:** [What would make you reverse this within 90 days?] --- ### Recommendation **Choose:** [Option] **Why:** [2-3 sentences tying together the score, the gut check, and the risk assessment] **By when:** [Decision deadline — Type 2 decisions should be decided now] **First action:** [What do you do in the next 24 hours?] ``` --- ## Quick Shortcuts **When you're stuck and going in circles:** → You probably have a Type 2 decision. Decide with 70% of the information you wish you had. The cost of delay is exceeding the cost of a suboptimal choice. **When everyone's agreeing too fast:** → Run the pre-mortem. Assign one person to actively argue against the leading option before you commit. **When it feels wrong but the analysis says go:** → Name the feeling. What criterion did you underweight? Adjust the model or adjust the decision — but don't ignore the signal. **When you're making the same decision repeatedly:** → This is Type 3. Stop deciding case-by-case. Write a policy. --- ## Where the Lite Version Ends You can make a significantly better decision with just these three phases. Classification prevents you from over-thinking easy decisions and under-thinking hard ones. The weighted analysis surfaces the real tradeoffs. The pre-mortem catches what optimism hides. **What you won't get here:** - The **OODA loop** (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) for time-pressured decisions in dynamic environments - The **Eisenhower matrix + RICE scoring** for prioritizing competing options - **Second-order thinking** — consequences of consequences (where most strategic decisions go wrong) - **Regret Minimization** framework for personal / career decisions - **Cognitive bias checklist** — 15 specific biases with targeted mitigations and a bias risk score - **RAPID framework** for group decisions (who decides, who advises, who executes — with one clear decider) - **Scenario planning** with expected value calculations across bull/base/bear cases - **Decision policies** — convert recurring Type 3 decisions into rules that eliminate repeated deliberation - **Decision quality scoring rubric** — rate the process, not just the outcome - **Decision record templates** for building an organizational decision log The full version is used by founders and executives facing strategic pivots, hiring calls, investment decisions, and product prioritization — any choice where the cost of being wrong is high. **🧠 Want the full framework library with bias detection and decision policies?** **Full version → [agentofalpha.com](https://agentofalpha.com)** --- ## Example Queries - `"Help me decide whether to take this job offer"` - `"We're choosing between two vendors — walk me through it"` - `"Should we build or buy this feature?"` - `"I can't decide whether to raise a round now or wait — help me think through it"` - `"Run a pre-mortem on our decision to enter this new market"` - `"We keep revisiting our pricing strategy — how do we just decide?"`


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