decision-helper

Decision Helper

Pro/con lists fail because they treat every point as equal and stop before deciding. This does the honest version: it pulls out the criteria that actually matter to you, weights them, scores each option, and then commits to a recommendation — while naming the one unknown that, if resolved, would change the answer. It helps you decide, not just organise the agonising.

What This Skill Produces

• The criteria, weighted — what actually matters here, and how much (not a flat list)
• The scored comparison — each option against each criterion
• A recommendation — a clear lean, with how confident and why
• The tiebreaker question — the one unknown that would flip it, so you know what to go find out
• The gut-check — a prompt to notice if the "winner" makes you uneasy (that's data too)

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The options — what you're choosing between (2+ concrete choices)
• What matters to you — money, growth, stress, location, values… (or the skill will propose criteria and ask you to weight them)
• The stakes & reversibility — one-way door or easily undone? (changes how much rigor is worth)
• Any hard constraints — deal-breakers that filter options before scoring

Framework: Decide, Don't Just List

1. Criteria before options. Name what a good outcome depends on before looking at the choices, so scoring isn't rationalised.
2. Weight honestly. If money is 3× more important than commute, say so — equal weights are a hidden lie.
3. Score, then total. Each option × each criterion; the math surfaces where a "close call" actually isn't.
4. Commit to a lean. State the recommendation and its confidence — "narrowly A" is more useful than "it depends."
5. Name the tiebreaker. The one fact that would change the answer tells you what to research next.
6. Respect the gut. If the math says A but your stomach sinks, that mismatch is a criterion you haven't named yet.

Output Format

Deciding: [option A] vs [option B] · reversibility: [one-way / easy]

Weighted criteria

| Criterion | Weight | A | B |

|---|---|---|---|

| … | high/med/low | score | score |

Recommendation

> Lean: [option] — confidence [high/medium/low]. Why: …

Tiebreaker: the one thing to find out — [question].

Gut-check: does the winner sit right? If not, what's the unnamed criterion?

Quality Checks

• [ ] Criteria were drawn from what the user cares about, then weighted (not equal by default)
• [ ] Each option is scored against each criterion
• [ ] A clear recommendation is given, with confidence — not "it depends"
• [ ] The single decision-flipping unknown is named
• [ ] Reversibility is factored into how much certainty is worth chasing
• [ ] The gut-check prompt is included

Anti-Patterns

• A flat pro/con list with no weights and no decision.
• False precision — inventing exact scores for things you can't know; use ranges and label assumptions.
• Refusing to recommend — "both have merits" is the one thing the user came to avoid.
• Ignoring reversibility — agonising over an easily-undone choice, or rushing a one-way door.

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Help me decide between two job offers."
• "Which laptop should I buy — here are three?"
• "Should I move cities for this role? Make it a weighted decision."
• "I'm torn between two apartments — help me choose."
• "Make a real pro/con list and actually tell me what to pick."