decision-audit-trail
Skill8 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use this skill after a real organizational decision has been made (vendor selected, architecture chosen, hire approved, strategy committed, project killed) to capture the reasoning while it is still fresh. Triggers on phrases like "audit decision", "document why we decided", "decision memo for [X]", or when the user references a recently made choice. Produces a one-page "Why we decided X" memo for future you, new hires, or board context.
In this repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- competitor-readSkill
- consultant-translatorSkill
- contract-redlineSkill
- feedback-themesSkill
- investor-updateSkill
- panel-synthesizerSkill
- pre-meeting-contextSkill
- talk-to-assetsSkill
- weekly-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
If the user just says "audit our vendor decision," ask one clarifying question about which vendor and the rough time window, then proceed.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Decision Audit Trail
When to use this skill
A non-trivial decision has just been made. In six months, someone will ask why. The person who made the call will be vague. The notes are scattered across Slack, Notion, email threads, and meeting recordings. This skill captures the reasoning at decision time, not six months later when it has decayed.
Input the user provides
- The decision (one sentence, ideally with the specific choice made)
- The time window in which the decision was discussed (last week, last 30 days, last quarter)
- Optionally: pointers to relevant threads, docs, meeting notes
If the user just says "audit our vendor decision," ask one clarifying question about which vendor and the rough time window, then proceed.
What this skill does
- Walks back through the available material from the named time window
- Pulls the relevant inputs:
- Alternatives that were seriously considered (not the 30 long-listed options, the 2-4 that were real finalists)
- The criteria used to evaluate them
- Who pushed in which direction and why
- What changed during the discussion (when did opinions shift, what data caused the shift)
- The deciding factor (the thing that ultimately tipped the call)
- Produces a one-page decision memo in the structure below.
Output structure
# Decision: [Specific decision made]
*Decided by: [decision-maker]. Date: [decision date]. Time window reviewed: [start-end]*
## What we decided
One paragraph stating the decision in plain language and what it means operationally.
## Alternatives we seriously considered
- [Alternative 1]: brief description, why it was on the table, why we did not choose it
- [Alternative 2]: same
- [Alternative 3, if applicable]: same
## Criteria we used
- Criterion 1 (with rough weight)
- Criterion 2
- Criterion 3
Note which were stated upfront vs. which emerged during the discussion.
## What the discussion looked like
2-3 sentences on who pushed which way, what tensions surfaced, what shifted minds.
## The deciding factor
One paragraph naming the specific thing that tipped the decision. Be honest. If the deciding factor was a relationship, a deadline, or a gut call, name it as such rather than dressing it up as a criteria-driven choice.
## Risks we accepted
- Risk 1 and the mitigation (or acknowledged unmitigated risk)
- Risk 2
## What would change our mind
2-3 conditions under which this decision would be revisited.Calibration notes
- The deciding factor section is the most important. Most decision memos make the decision sound more rational than it was. Resist that. Future readers benefit from an honest account.
- One page is the cap. A two-page memo will not be read in six months.
- Distinguish between "the criteria we used" (true) and "the criteria we said we used" (the rationalized story). Where there is a gap, note it.
- For confidential or sensitive personnel decisions, flag clearly and recommend storing the memo in restricted access.
When NOT to use this skill
- Trivial decisions (which restaurant for lunch)
- Decisions still under active debate (use a decision framing doc instead)
- Decisions where the reasoning is already well-documented elsewhere
The skill earns its place when the decision is real, made, and the trail is currently scattered.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

