agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/decision-matrix/SKILL.md

decision-matrix

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when choosing among options and the decision needs explicit criteria, tradeoffs, and defensible reasoning. Use when applying the Decision Matrix consulting method and when a user asks for Decision Matrix, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.

15 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use this skill to run Decision Matrix as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not use when there is only one viable option, the decision criteria are not agreed, or mandatory requirements remain unresolved.

    line 29
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

    line 87

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Decision Matrix

Use this skill to run Decision Matrix as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

  • Define criteria before scoring options.
  • Weights should reflect the real decision, not post-hoc preference.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • options
  • decision criteria
  • weights
  • evidence for scoring

Apply the When Not To Use conditions before this missing-input rule. If any condition applies, do not score or rank options; state the blocking condition and the smallest next clarification or validation action. For other missing inputs, mark them as missing, label any assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use when there is only one viable option, the decision criteria are not agreed, or mandatory requirements remain unresolved. Apply hard gates before weighted scoring.

Adjacent Methods

  • weighted-scorecard: repeatable governance evaluation across comparable entities.
  • rice-scoring: product or initiative backlog prioritization.
  • wsjf-prioritization: sequencing by Cost of Delay and Job Size.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Define decisionDecision statement, options, must-have constraints.Remove non-viable options before scoring.Viable option set.
Choose criteriaObjectives, stakeholder priorities, risk constraints.Select criteria that actually decide success.Criteria list.
Weight criteriaCriteria and decision priorities.Assign weights totaling 100 percent or another explicit scale.Weighted criteria.
Score optionsOptions, criteria, evidence.Score each option against each criterion and record rationale.Completed decision matrix.
Recommend and testScores and uncertain assumptions.Pick recommendation, show tradeoffs, and test whether weight changes alter the choice.Decision recommendation.

Output Template

### 1. Decision And Eligibility
Decision:
Options:
Must-have gates:
Evidence cut-off date:

### 2. Weighted Criteria
| Criterion | Weight | Scoring anchor | Evidence source |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 3. Option Scores
| Option | Criterion scores | Weighted total | Rationale / evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 4. Sensitivity And Recommendation
Recommendation:
Tradeoff accepted:
Weight / score that changes the result:
Validation action:

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

  • Produce the method-specific outputs for Decision And Eligibility, Weighted Criteria, Option Scores; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
  • Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
  • Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
  • Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
  • State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
  • Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.