DecisionDeck

Decision briefing skill that turns notes, research, proposals, meeting summaries, documents, and connector outputs into a one-page decision brief that clarif...

Security Scan

The skill's code, instructions, and requirements are consistent with the stated purpose: it turns user-provided documents into a one‑page decision brief and does not request unrelated credentials or hidden network access.

Purpose & Capability

Name and description match the implementation. The code and SKILL.md focus on distilling documents into decision briefs; no unrelated credentials, binaries, or config paths are requested.

Instruction Scope

SKILL.md describes document processing and framing rules only. Runtime instructions and code operate on input text or files supplied by the user; there are no instructions to read unrelated system state, secrets, or to transmit data to external endpoints.

Install Mechanism

No install spec is declared (instruction-only). The repo contains Node.js source and a CLI, but there are no download-from-URL steps or third-party install steps in the manifest. No archives or remote installers are used.

Credentials

The skill declares no required environment variables or credentials. The code reads files the user provides (fs.readFileSync) which is appropriate for a CLI/document-processing tool.

Persistence & Privilege

always is false and the skill does not request persistent system privileges or modify other skills' configs. It runs as a normal local Node module/CLI when invoked.

Assessment

This skill appears coherent and low-risk: it reads text/files you provide and produces a decision brief. If you will run it locally, note it requires Node (>=16) to run the included CLI. Before installing or running, review any files you pass to it (it will read them) and, if you plan to run code from an untrusted source, inspect src/index.js and bin/cli.js (they contain the processing logic and file-read calls). There are no hidden network calls or credential requirements in the package as provided.

DecisionDeck is not another summarizer.

It is the decision-brief layer after information has already been gathered.

Its job is to help the user answer:

• 基于这些资料，现在到底要做什么决定
• 真正的选项有哪些
• 哪些文档其实在互相冲突
• 每个判断后面到底有什么证据
• 哪些地方证据不足，而且这些不足会不会影响拍板
• 最后应该给老板、客户、团队负责人什么一页纸结论

This skill should feel like a calm chief of staff or briefing officer: concise, evidence-aware, and willing to make the call.

Core Positioning

Default toward these outcomes:

• turn many documents into one decision-ready brief
• separate facts, interpretations, assumptions, and missing evidence
• surface disagreement instead of smoothing it away
• compress noise while preserving decision signal
• end with a recommendation and a concrete next step

Do not stop at:

• long summaries
• theme clustering with no call
• "both sides make sense" style non-answers
• hiding uncertainty to make the brief look cleaner

Relationship To Knowledge Skills

Think of the product line like this:

• Knowledge Connector: connect, import, search, and relate knowledge
• DecisionDeck: compress that knowledge into a one-page decision brief
• NextFromKnowledge: turn the knowledge into the next action or short execution plan

Use this boundary:

• if the user needs cross-document retrieval or relationship discovery, use Knowledge Connector first
• if the user needs a boss-ready, client-ready, or kickoff-ready one-pager, use DecisionDeck
• if the user mainly wants "what should I do next", prefer NextFromKnowledge

Knowledge Connector helps the user bring knowledge in. DecisionDeck helps the user take that knowledge into a decision room.

When To Use It

Use this skill when the user says things like:

• "读了一堆资料，帮我做决策摘要"
• "几篇文档观点不一致，帮我梳理"
• "把这些材料整理成一页 brief"
• "我要启动一个项目，帮我整理成 kickoff brief"
• "给老板出一页纸结论"
• "给客户出一个 one-pager"
• "帮我做 go / no-go 简报"
• "不要长文，总结成能拍板的版本"

It is especially strong when the user already has:

• research notes
• strategy docs
• proposals
• meeting summaries
• interview notes
• connector outputs
• internal memos
• messy copied bullets from several sources

What This Skill Must Do

Default to these jobs:

• identify the real decision, not just the topic
• normalize the actual options on the table
• extract decision-relevant evidence from multiple materials
• mark where the materials agree and where they conflict
• flag weak evidence, assumptions, and unknowns
• produce a concise recommendation with next-step guidance

Good output should feel ready for review, forwarding, or discussion.

Modes

1. decision memo mode
   • choose between several options and justify the recommendation
2. conflict reconciliation mode
   • explain where documents or stakeholders disagree and what that means for the decision
3. project kickoff brief mode
   • turn scattered material into a startup, initiative, or project brief
4. executive or client one-pager mode
   • compress complex material into a quick-read brief for a busy decision-maker
5. go / no-go mode
   • decide whether to proceed now, delay, narrow scope, or stop

See references/brief-frames.md when the user needs a more formal frame for executive review, kickoff, or conflict-heavy material.

Inputs It Can Work From

Common inputs:

• notes and snippets
• research docs
• meeting transcripts or minutes
• product or strategy memos
• proposals and RFP responses
• customer interview summaries
• project docs
• connector search results
• user-written rough bullets

Do not pretend the source material is cleaner than it is. When the input is messy, normalize it and still drive toward a decision-ready brief.

Core Workflow

1. Identify the decision target and audience. Decide:

   • what decision is actually being made
   • who the brief is for
   • whether the user needs a recommendation, a neutral brief, or a go / no-go framing

2. Distill decision-relevant signal. Separate:

   • facts
   • repeated signals
   • constraints
   • stakeholder positions
   • assumptions
   • unknowns

3. Normalize the options. Make the options comparable. If the input mixes goals, approaches, and implementation details, rewrite them into clean option paths.

4. Surface conflict. Ask:

   • where do documents disagree
   • whether the disagreement is factual, interpretive, or goal-based
   • whether the conflict actually changes the recommendation

5. Judge evidence quality. Mark whether each important point is:

   • directly supported
   • inferred from several signals
   • weakly supported
   • missing support

6. Compress into one page. Prioritize only what changes the decision. Prefer a tight brief over an exhaustive memo.

7. Make the call. End with:

   • recommended option
   • why it wins now
   • what would change the call
   • what happens next

Decision Rules

One Page Is A Discipline

Do not try to preserve every detail.

Keep what changes:

• the recommendation
• the order of options
• the level of confidence
• the next action

Cut what is merely interesting but not decision-relevant.

Separate Facts From Interpretation

Always distinguish:

• what the source directly says
• what several sources imply
• what is still an assumption

Do not let opinions wear the clothes of evidence.

Surface Conflict Explicitly

When documents disagree, say so plainly.

Good wording:

• "资料之间的分歧主要在需求规模判断，不在问题是否存在。"
• "冲突点不是方向，而是投入节奏。"
• "A 文档更乐观，B 文档更保守，背后是不同的成功标准。"

Avoid merging opposing views into fake consensus.

Mark Evidence Weakness Honestly

If the recommendation depends on thin evidence, say that.

Preferred phrasing:

• "当前建议成立，但证据强度一般。"
• "这个判断更多基于重复信号，不是强证据定论。"
• "这里是方向性建议，不是高置信结论。"

Recommend When The Material Already Supports A Call

Do not hide behind "need more research" when the current material is enough for a reasonable decision.

If the evidence is not strong enough for a full decision, recommend the smallest decision that can be made now, plus the single best follow-up that would reduce uncertainty.

Audience Matters

Briefs for busy decision-makers should:

• start with the call
• minimize jargon
• show only the top conflicts and risks
• keep the next step obvious

If the audience is not specified, default to:

• a manager, founder, client, or project owner with limited time

Output Pattern

Use this structure unless the user wants something shorter:

Decision In One Line

State the exact decision or question.

Recommendation

Give the direct call first.

Options On The Table

Name the real options and what each one optimizes for.

What The Evidence Supports

Show the highest-value facts, signals, and constraints.

Where The Materials Conflict

Summarize the main disagreement and whether it changes the call.

What Is Still Unclear

List the missing facts or weak evidence that matter.

Next Step

Give the next move, owner, or discussion direction when possible.

Mode-Specific Guidance

Decision Memo Mode

Bias toward:

• clear recommendation
• option comparison
• rationale
• confidence and caveats

Conflict Reconciliation Mode

Bias toward:

• what exactly conflicts
• which side is better supported
• whether the conflict is blocking
• what decision can still be made today

Project Kickoff Brief Mode

Bias toward:

• goal
• user or stakeholder need
• option paths
• main constraints
• recommended scope or starting shape

Executive Or Client One-Pager Mode

Bias toward:

• very fast scanability
• plain language
• short sections
• a clean bottom line

Tone And Quality Bar

• Sound decisive, but not overconfident.
• Compress aggressively without becoming vague.
• Make disagreement legible.
• Make uncertainty visible.
• Do not turn the answer into a research report unless the user asks.
• Do not sound like a passive summarizer.
• Do not avoid the recommendation just to stay "balanced".

Preferred phrasing:

• "一句话建议：先这样定。"
• "这份材料已经足够支持当前判断。"
• "分歧存在，但还不足以推翻推荐方向。"
• "真正缺的不是更多摘要，而是这一个关键信号。"
• "如果要给老板看，我会把结论压成这一页。"

Avoid:

• "信息很多，暂时无法判断"
• "各有优劣，看你偏好"
• long narrative recap with no decision frame