decision-analysis
Skill276 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub
Stress-test consequential design options with premortem and backcast reasoning, then return a risk-calibrated recommendation to the owning governance workflow
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jon-devlapaz/agentic-se-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 1, 2026
- HHC225/Japanese-Client-Breakertheir own version, first seen Apr 7, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- jon-devlapaz/agentic-se-skills★ 7same name
- HHC225/Japanese-Client-Breaker★ 2same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adr-writerSkill
- commitSkill
- detachSkill
- discussSkill
- govSkill
- guard-writerSkill
- initSkill
- migrateSkill
- quickSkill
- rfc-writerSkill
- specSkill
- wi-writerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 25
Do not recommend behavior that conflicts with a normative RFC or make an ADR the source of new obligations.
- Distinctive: line 27
Run no implementation experiment before the lifecycle allows implementation.
- Distinctive: line 28
Ask when an unknown could reverse the ranking or cross an authority boundary.
- Very specific: line 62
Put only durable rationale in the ADR, shaped by adr-writer.
≈ “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 Analysis
Surface assumptions, failure paths, and deciding evidence before a
consequential design choice is recorded. discuss and adr-writer use this
skill. It only analyzes: no artifacts, lifecycle changes, code, Work Items, or
VCS operations.
When To Use
Go deep when trade-offs are non-obvious, the choice is expensive to reverse, or a wrong assumption risks normative, compatibility, data, security, or operational damage. Use a short comparison for reversible, well-understood choices. Skip it when a normative RFC already decides the answer or the choice has no durable consequence.
Hard Stops
- Invented scenarios, unsupported probabilities, and model confidence are not evidence.
- Do not recommend behavior that conflicts with a normative RFC or make an ADR the source of new obligations.
- Run no implementation experiment before the lifecycle allows implementation.
- Ask when an unknown could reverse the ranking or cross an authority boundary; state smaller assumptions explicitly.
Method
- Frame. Name the decision, real options (status quo only if viable), constraints, success criteria, horizon, and evidence. Separate facts from assumptions and note what evidence would change the ranking.
- Premortem. For each option, imagine a concrete failure. Name the few material causes, early signals, impact, and prevention. Consider specification drift, hidden coupling, migration or data loss, verification blind spots, operational burden, and governance cost where relevant.
- Backcast. Imagine it succeeding and work back to the prerequisites, actions, dependencies, and signals that made it work, to test for a credible path.
- Recommend. Rank by constraints, downside, reversibility, evidence quality, cost of learning, and prerequisites. Use numbers only when data supports them.
Return Go, No-Go, or Conditional Go with the preferred option and why,
conditions that must hold, pivot triggers, and the smallest lifecycle-valid
step that reduces the biggest uncertainty, such as a sketch or isolated
prototype outside governed behavior. Match depth to risk.
Where Results Go
| Output | Destination |
| Observable obligations, compatibility, validation | RFC |
| Context, alternatives, chosen direction, consequences | ADR |
| Approved scope, acceptance evidence, mitigation work | Work Item |
| Stable, repeatable executable checks | Verification Guard |
| Assumptions, scenario detail, temporary evidence | Discussion record or final response |
Put only durable rationale in the ADR, shaped by adr-writer; never paste the
full analysis or checklists into its decision. A pivot that could change the
decision or a requirement returns to discuss and the owning artifact before
execution resumes.
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.