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
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:
- If this goes wrong, can we fix it within 30 days at reasonable cost? → Yes = Type 2
- Is the cost of being wrong more than 10× the cost of analysis? → Yes = Type 1
- Have we made this exact decision 3+ times before? → Yes = Type 3 (build a policy)
- 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
## 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
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?"
