decision-making
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate options and choose: divergent methods, RACI, scoring, decision trees, and inversion. Use when evaluating high-stakes decisions or trade-offs.
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- kju4q/q-claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- priyanshuchaudhary53/naval-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- SkillMedev/personal-operating-systemtheir own version, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- AngelCampa1/decision-making-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 2, 2026
- Bappoz/My-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 15, 2026
- c-sonnier/37signals-decisions-skilltheir own version, first seen Jun 16, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- kju4q/q-claude-skills★ 21same name
- priyanshuchaudhary53/naval-skills★ 19same name
- c-sonnier/37signals-decisions-skill★ 8same name
- AngelCampa1/decision-making-skills★ 1same name
- Bappoz/My-Claude-Skills★ 1same name
- SkillMedev/personal-operating-system★ 1same 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 repository51 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-governance-architectSkill
- alliancesSkill
- board-deck-builderSkill
- board-reportingSkill
- business-plan-outlinerSkill
- business-planSkill
- business-strategySkill
- change-management-leaderSkill
- change-managementSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- client-proposal-writerSkill
- contract-clause-explainerSkill
- decision-frameworkSkill
- experiment-trackerSkill
- feedback-giverSkill
- fundraisingSkill
- hiringSkill
- internal-reportingSkill
- investor-deckSkill
- investor-pitch-deck-writerSkill
- jira-workflow-stewardSkill
- job-description-writerSkill
- market-trendsSkill
- meeting-summariserSkill
- negotiationSkill
- negotiation-strategistSkill
- notion-database-architectSkill
- okr-designerSkill
- okrsSkill
- operationsSkill
- portfolio-opsSkill
- process-redesignSkill
- productivity-auditSkill
- product-managementSkill
- product-managerSkill
- project-managerSkill
- project-planningSkill
- project-shepherdSkill
- sop-writerSkill
- sprint-planningSkill
- sprint-prioritizerSkill
- studio-operationsSkill
- studio-producerSkill
- supply-chainSkill
- team-dynamicsSkill
- trend-researcherSkill
- upwork-proposalSkill
- upworkSkill
- vendor-procurement-managerSkill
- vendor-selectionSkill
- workflow-redesign-consultantSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
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 28
Never make a binary decision ("Should we build Feature X or not?").
- Distinctive: line 30
Instead of asking: *"How do we make this launch a massive success?"*
- Distinctive: line 31
Ask: *"How could we guarantee this launch turns into a complete disaster?"*
- Distinctive: line 40
When facing financial trade-offs: $$text{EMV} = \sum (P_i imes text{Outcome}_i)$$
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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.
Files
decision-making
Core Philosophy
High-stakes decision-making in leadership is not relying on intuition, gut feelings, or consensus-seeking committee votes. Bad decisions stem from cognitive biases: confirmation bias, sunk cost fallacies, groupthink, and status-quo inertia. World-class decision-making is a systematic, probabilistic discipline. It requires classifying decision reversibility (Jeff Bezos' Type 1 vs Type 2 framework), applying inversion, running pre-mortems to expose blind spots, and establishing explicit RACI accountability.
4-Step Strategic Decision-Making Framework
Step 1: Decision Reversibility Triage (Type 1 vs Type 2)
- The Two-Way Door vs One-Way Door Filter:
- Type 1 (One-Way Door - Irreversible / High Impact): Selling the company, changing corporate entity structure, signing a 5-year lease, firing a co-founder. Requires exhaustive analysis, divergent exploration, and deliberate slowing down.
- Type 2 (Two-Way Door - Reversible / Moderate Impact): Launching a marketing campaign, tweaking pricing packaging, redesigning a landing page, testing a new feature. Execute immediately with high velocity. If it fails, open the door and walk back.
- The Bias for Action Rule:
- Most organizational gridlock occurs when teams treat lightweight Type 2 decisions as if they are catastrophic Type 1 decisions.
Step 2: Divergent Generation & Inversion (Charlie Munger)
- The Rule of 3 Options:
- Never make a binary decision ("Should we build Feature X or not?"). Always generate at least 3 fundamentally distinct viable alternatives.
- Inversion Analysis ("Invert, Always Invert"):
- Instead of asking: "How do we make this launch a massive success?"
- Ask: "How could we guarantee this launch turns into a complete disaster?"
- List every failure catalyst (e.g. database locks, confusing pricing, broken signup, missed SLA) and systematically engineer preventative safeguards against each.
Step 3: The Pre-Mortem Protocol & Probabilistic Expected Value
- The Gary Klein Pre-Mortem:
- Gather key stakeholders 48 hours before signing off on the decision.
- Prompt: "Imagine we are 12 months in the future, and this initiative has completely failed. Our budget is blown, customers are furious, and our servers are dead. In the next 10 minutes, write down the exact story of why we failed."
- Surfaces hidden political anxieties and unvoiced engineering concerns.
- Expected Monetary Value (EMV) Decision Trees:
- When facing financial trade-offs: $$text{EMV} = \sum (P_i imes text{Outcome}_i)$$
- Calculate expected value across optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic probability scenarios.
Step 4: Governance & The RACI Matrix
- Single Accountable Decision Maker:
- Consensus breeds mediocrity. Every decision must have exactly one Accountable (A) individual who has the authority to make the final call, even if the team disagrees and commits.
Deliverable Format: Strategic Decision Memo (DECISION-RECORD.md)
# Strategic Decision Memorandum: [Decision Title]
*Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Decision Owner (Accountable): [Name, Title]*
## 1. Decision Classification & Core Question
- **Decision Question**: Should we rewrite our core backend API in Go or maintain our current TypeScript codebase?
- **Decision Type**: **TYPE 1 (One-Way Door)** — High migration cost, 6-month engineering lock.
## 2. Evaluated Alternatives
| Dimension | Option A: Full Rewrite in Go | Option B: Optimize Existing TypeScript | Option C: Hybrid (Go Worker for Hot Paths)|
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Velocity | High disruption (4 mos) | Immediate | Moderate (4 weeks) |
| Latency Ceiling (p99) | < 15ms (10x gain) | ~120ms (Current) | < 25ms (5x gain) |
| Team Training Overhead| High (Team knows TS) | Zero | Low (Only 2 devs learn Go) |
| 12-Month Infra Cost | $60,000 / year | $180,000 / year | $85,000 / year |
## 3. Pre-Mortem Findings (Why This Could Fail)
- *Risk 1*: Full rewrite drags from 4 months into 9 months, halting product feature roadmap.
- *Mitigation*: Reject Option A. Adopt **Option C (Hybrid)** to bound risk.
## 4. Final Decision & Rationale
- **Chosen Course**: **Option C: Hybrid Go Worker Architecture**.
- **Rationale**: Captures 80% of the latency and compute savings while protecting feature roadmap velocity.
- **RACI**: Accountable: VP Eng | Responsible: Staff Backend Dev | Consulted: Product Director | Informed: All Engineering.Worked Example: Resolving Co-Founder Deadlock on Pricing
- Deadlock: Founders argued for 6 weeks over freemium vs 14-day free trial.
- Resolution: Classified decision as Type 2 (Two-Way Door). Decided to run a 30-day split test in production with explicit kill metrics.
- Outcome: Data proved free trial generated 3x higher paid conversion; debate settled with zero emotional friction.
Verification Checklist
- Decision classified as Type 1 (irreversible) or Type 2 (reversible).
- At least 3 distinct alternatives evaluated in a comparison matrix.
- Pre-mortem conducted to uncover silent risks and failure modes.
- Inversion exercise executed to identify actions to avoid.
- Single Accountable owner (RACI) designated with authority to decide.
Anti-Patterns
- Consensus-Seeking Paralysis: Waiting for 10 people to agree 100% on a simple reversible decision.
- Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing to throw money at a failing project because "we've already spent $200k on it".
- Binary Blindness: Framing complex strategic choices as simple "Yes/No" questions without exploring hybrid alternatives.
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.

