vke-decision-workflow

Build VKE evidence-led decision workflows and business knowledge products from a request. Use when OpenClaw or Codex needs to create or update VKE case artifacts such as problem briefs, research plans, evidence ledgers, analysis notes, red-team reviews, commercial decision reports, watchlists, and retrospectives.

Overview

Use this skill to turn an ambiguous knowledge request into a traceable decision package. The workflow is evidence-led: separate facts, judgments, and assumptions; bind every core judgment to evidence IDs and confidence; use red-team review before producing the final business report.

The standard artifact sequence is:

1. 00_request.md - original request
2. 01_problem-brief.md - decision framing
3. 02_research-plan.md - resource and evidence plan
4. 03_evidence-ledger.csv - evidence table
5. 04_analysis-notes.md - reasoning notes
6. 05_red-team-review.md - adversarial review
7. 06_knowledge-product.md - decision product or commercial report
8. 07_watchlist.md - monitoring indicators
9. 08_retrospective.md - process review

Read references/artifact-templates.md when creating or rewriting any artifact.

Operating Rules

• Do not change source case files unless the user asks to update them.
• Preserve user-provided evidence boundaries. If the user says not to add external facts, only use the supplied ledger, notes, and files.
• Treat evidence relevance and reliability separately. A reliable source with low relevance cannot support a strong conclusion.
• Keep the decision question visible. Every artifact should serve the user's decision, not become general research.
• Distinguish facts, judgments, and assumptions:
  • Fact: what a source or evidence record says.
  • Judgment: what those facts imply for the decision.
  • Assumption: a necessary but not yet proven condition.
• Attach confidence to each core judgment, not only to the whole report.
• Prefer conservative wording when evidence is indirect, adjacent, or low relevance.
• Red-team before finalizing the knowledge product.

Workflow

1. Frame the Problem

Create or update 01_problem-brief.md.

Capture:

• core decision question
• decision use
• known facts
• key uncertainties
• scope boundaries
• success criteria
• deadline or time horizon

Convert vague interest into a decision form such as: "Should we invest, enter, pause, continue observing, or run a limited validation?"

2. Plan Research and Resources

Create or update 02_research-plan.md.

Specify:

• hypotheses to verify
• evidence types and priority
• expert/resource needs
• institution or center-of-excellence types
• databases and public sources
• tools and search paths
• validation priorities
• likely source bias

Use resource planning to avoid over-collecting background information.

3. Build the Evidence Ledger

Create or update 03_evidence-ledger.csv.

Use stable evidence IDs such as EVD-001. Required fields:

csv

evidence_id,case_id,claim_supported,evidence_summary,source_id,source_name,source_date,collection_date,evidence_type,reliability,relevance,confidence_effect,notes

For each row, state what the evidence can support and what it cannot support. Mark reliability and relevance independently as 高, 中, or 低.

4. Write Analysis Notes

Create or update 04_analysis-notes.md.

Structure each major claim as:

• judgment
• evidence used
• reasoning chain
• alternative explanation
• confidence
• remaining verification

Use the pattern:

text

Evidence -> intermediate inference -> alternative explanation filter -> decision judgment -> confidence

Do not let evidence volume substitute for evidence quality.

5. Red-Team the Judgment

Create or update 05_red-team-review.md.

Actively challenge the preferred conclusion:

• Is the main judgment sufficiently supported?
• Is there selective evidence?
• Are negative or ambiguous signals ignored?
• Are stronger alternative explanations available?
• Which assumption is most fragile?
• Should confidence be lowered?
• What evidence would improve judgment quality?

Lead with the strongest objections, not the conclusion.

6. Produce the Knowledge Product

Create or update 06_knowledge-product.md.

For business decisions, use a commercial report structure:

1. Core conclusion and executive summary
2. Evidence chain and confidence
3. Analysis and counter-arguments
4. Business boundaries and impact assessment
5. Action plan and dynamic triggers

Requirements:

• Start with a one-sentence conclusion.
• Separate core facts, judgments, and assumptions.
• Cite evidence IDs in facts, evidence tables, reasoning, and counter-arguments.
• Mark confidence for each core judgment.
• Include uncertainty, alternative explanations, action matrix, and monitoring indicators.
• Avoid adding facts outside the approved evidence set.

7. Create a Watchlist

Create or update 07_watchlist.md.

Translate the report into monitorable indicators:

• indicator
• why it matters
• source
• frequency
• trigger condition
• action after trigger
• status

Make watchlist items capable of raising, lowering, or redirecting the decision.

8. Write the Retrospective

Create or update 08_retrospective.md.

Capture:

• whether the original question was answered
• most valuable sources
• noisy or misleading sources
• reusable analysis methods
• assumptions needing verification
• how to go faster next time
• resources to add to the pool
• templates to preserve

Confidence Rubric

• 高: direct, reliable, relevant, and corroborated evidence; few plausible counter-explanations.
• 中: useful evidence exists, but some pieces are indirect, adjacent, or not independently verified.
• 低: evidence is sparse, indirect, or dependent on unverified assumptions.
• 低到中: enough evidence for cautious action or limited validation, not enough for full commitment.

Output Style

• Use Chinese when the case artifacts are Chinese unless the user requests otherwise.
• Keep executive summaries short and decision-oriented.
• Use tables for ledgers, evidence summaries, action matrices, and triggers.
• Preserve evidence IDs exactly across artifacts.
• Prefer "current evidence supports..." over categorical claims when confidence is not high.