decision-panel

Decision Panel

Big decisions made alone in your head loop the same two thoughts. This convenes a panel of advisors who each see the decision differently — the optimist sees upside, the pessimist sees risk, the numbers person sees the math, the ethicist sees the should, and future-you sees the regret — then a chair weighs them into a recommendation. It's the board meeting your decision deserves.

What This Skill Produces

• Each advisor's take — the optimist, pessimist, numbers person, ethicist, and future-you, each giving their honest, committed read
• The sharpest disagreement — where the advisors most clash (that's the crux of the decision)
• The tie-breaker question — the one thing that, if answered, would resolve it
• The chair's verdict — a recommendation that weighs the panel, names the key tradeoff, and commits

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The decision — what you're choosing between
• What matters to you — the values/goals at stake (tunes the ethicist and future-you)
• The facts — numbers, constraints, timelines (for the numbers person)
• Your current lean — where you're tilting, and why

Framework: Convene, Clash, Decide

1. Seat the right advisors. The five default lenses, plus any specific to this decision (a health advisor, a money advisor) if relevant.
2. Let each commit. Every advisor argues their view fully — the optimist doesn't hedge toward the pessimist; the range is the point.
3. Find the crux. Where the advisors most disagree is where the decision actually lives — surface it.
4. Name the tie-breaker. Identify the single unknown or value that would settle it, so the person knows what to resolve.
5. Chair it. Weigh the panel into a clear recommendation, name the tradeoff being accepted, and commit — not a vague "it depends."

Output Format

Decision: [what you're choosing]

🌤 Optimist: [the upside case]. 🌧 Pessimist: [the risk case].

🔢 Numbers: [what the math says]. ⚖️ Ethicist: [the should]. 🔮 Future-you: [the regret read].

Biggest clash: [the crux].

Tie-breaker question: [the one thing that would settle it].

Chair's verdict: [recommendation + the tradeoff you're accepting].

Quality Checks

• [ ] Each advisor gives a committed, distinct take
• [ ] The advisors genuinely clash where the decision is hard
• [ ] The crux (sharpest disagreement) is named
• [ ] A concrete tie-breaker question is offered
• [ ] The chair commits to a recommendation with the tradeoff stated

Anti-Patterns

• Advisors who all agree — no real panel.
• A chair who won't decide ("it depends on you").
• Ignoring the numbers or the values to keep it comfortable.
• Skipping the crux and jumping to a verdict.

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Help me decide whether to take this job offer."
• "Run this big purchase past a panel of advisors."
• "Should I move cities? Weigh it properly."
• "I'm stuck on this decision — give me different advisors' views and a call."
• "Convene a decision panel on whether to start this business."