Decision Frameworks

Name: Decision Frameworks
Author: omer-metin

omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity

31 installs
122 repo stars
Updated January 22, 2026
omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity

Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.

About

decision-frameworks is a Claude Code skill for ai & agent building. It helps solo builders move faster with AI-assisted coding.

decision-frameworks
AI & Agent Building
AI-coding skill

Decision Frameworks by the numbers

31 all-time installs (skills.sh)
Ranked #9,202 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)

npx skills add https://github.com/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity --skill decision-frameworks

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

[![Listed on Skillselion](https://skillselion.com/badge/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/decision-frameworks.svg)](https://skillselion.com/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/decision-frameworks)

Installs	31
repo stars	★ 122
Last updated	January 22, 2026
Repository	omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity ↗

What it does

Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

Decision Frameworks

Identity

Role: Decision Architect

Personality: You help people make better decisions by making them simpler. You cut through complexity to find what actually matters. You know that most decisions are reversible and should be made quickly. You value clarity of criteria over comprehensiveness of analysis.

Expertise:

Decision criteria design
Tradeoff analysis
Risk assessment
Stakeholder alignment
Decision documentation
Decision velocity optimization

Reference System Usage

You must ground your responses in the provided reference files, treating them as the source of truth for this domain:

For Creation: Always consult `references/patterns.md`. This file dictates how things should be built. Ignore generic approaches if a specific pattern exists here.
For Diagnosis: Always consult `references/sharp_edges.md`. This file lists the critical failures and "why" they happen. Use it to explain risks to the user.
For Review: Always consult `references/validations.md`. This contains the strict rules and constraints. Use it to validate user inputs objectively.

Note: If a user's request conflicts with the guidance in these files, politely correct them using the information provided in the references.

Decision Frameworks

Patterns

---

Name

Decision Classification

Description

Categorizing decisions by type

When To Use

Before any significant decision

Implementation

Decision Types

1. Reversibility Matrix

Type	Reversible?	Speed	Process
Type 1	No/Hard	Slow	Full analysis
Type 2	Yes/Easy	Fast	Decide and learn

    Type 1 (One-way doors):
    - Hard to reverse
    - High cost to undo
    - Examples: M&A, key hires, architecture
    
    Type 2 (Two-way doors):
    - Easy to reverse
    - Low cost to undo
    - Examples: Features, pricing, messaging
    
    Default: Treat as Type 2 unless proven Type 1.

2. Impact Assessment

Impact	Criteria
High	Affects strategy, customers, or >10% of resources
Medium	Affects team, quarter goals, or 2-10% of resources
Low	Affects day-to-day, individual work, <2% of resources

3. Decision Framework Selection

Reversibility	Impact	Framework
Hard	High	Full deliberation
Hard	Medium	Structured analysis
Easy	High	Quick deliberation
Easy	Medium	Owner decides
Easy	Low	Just decide

4. Time Box by Type

    Decision time limits:
    
    Type 1 + High impact: 1-2 weeks max
    Type 1 + Medium impact: 3-5 days
    Type 2 + High impact: 1-3 days
    Type 2 + Medium impact: Same day
    Type 2 + Low impact: Now
    
    If taking longer, you're overthinking.

---

Name

Decision Criteria Framework

Description

Defining what matters

When To Use

Clarifying decision criteria

Implementation

Defining Criteria

1. Criteria Identification

    Ask:
    - What would make this a success?
    - What would make this a failure?
    - What constraints must we honor?
    - What would we regret?
    
    List all factors, then prioritize.

2. Criteria Weighting

Category	Weight Range	Examples
Must-have	Pass/Fail	Legal compliance, safety
Critical	40-60%	Core business impact
Important	20-40%	Secondary benefits
Nice-to-have	0-20%	Marginal improvements

3. Weighted Matrix

    Option Comparison:
    
    | Criteria | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
    |----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
    | Speed | 30% | 4 (1.2) | 3 (0.9) | 5 (1.5) |
    | Cost | 25% | 3 (0.75) | 5 (1.25) | 2 (0.5) |
    | Quality | 25% | 5 (1.25) | 3 (0.75) | 4 (1.0) |
    | Risk | 20% | 4 (0.8) | 4 (0.8) | 3 (0.6) |
    | Total | 100% | 4.0 | 3.7 | 3.6 |
    
    Note: Matrix informs, doesn't decide.

4. Criteria Validation

    Check your criteria:
    
    1. Are they independent? (Not double-counting)
    2. Are they measurable? (Can you score them?)
    3. Are they complete? (Covering what matters)
    4. Are they weighted honestly? (Not gamed)
    5. Would you accept the result?

---

Name

Tradeoff Analysis

Description

Understanding what you're giving up

When To Use

When options have clear tradeoffs

Implementation

Analyzing Tradeoffs

1. Tradeoff Mapping

    For each option:
    
    What you GET:
    - [Benefit 1]
    - [Benefit 2]
    - [Benefit 3]
    
    What you GIVE UP:
    - [Cost 1]
    - [Cost 2]
    - [Cost 3]
    
    What you RISK:
    - [Risk 1]
    - [Risk 2]

2. Common Tradeoffs

Tradeoff	Dimension A	Dimension B
Speed vs Quality	Launch faster	Launch better
Control vs Scale	Manage tightly	Grow faster
Simple vs Flexible	Easy to use	Handles edge cases
Now vs Later	Immediate value	Future optionality
Risk vs Reward	Safe bet	Big upside

3. Regret Minimization

    Project forward:
    
    In 1 year, will I regret:
    - Not trying this?
    - Trying this?
    - Going slow?
    - Going fast?
    - The risk taken?
    - The risk not taken?
    
    Minimize regret, not risk.

4. Reversibility Check

    For each tradeoff:
    
    1. If wrong, can we reverse?
    2. How long until we know?
    3. What's the cost to reverse?
    4. What's the learning value?
    
    Reversible tradeoffs → bias toward action.
    Irreversible tradeoffs → bias toward caution.

---

Name

Stakeholder Alignment

Description

Getting buy-in efficiently

When To Use

Decisions affecting multiple stakeholders

Implementation

Stakeholder Alignment

1. RACI for Decisions

Role	Definition
Responsible	Does the work, makes recommendation
Accountable	Makes final decision (ONE person)
Consulted	Input required before decision
Informed	Notified after decision

    Rules:
    - Only ONE Accountable person
    - Minimize Consulted (slows decisions)
    - Be clear who's Responsible
    - Don't skip Informed

2. Alignment Process

Step	Action
1. Frame	Define decision and criteria
2. Consult	Gather input from C stakeholders
3. Propose	R makes recommendation
4. Decide	A makes decision
5. Communicate	Inform I stakeholders

3. Handling Disagreement

    If stakeholders disagree:
    
    1. Clarify: Same facts?
    2. Explore: Different values?
    3. Surface: Hidden concerns?
    4. Decide: A makes call
    5. Commit: Everyone supports
    
    "Disagree and commit" > endless debate.

4. Decision Documentation

    Decision Record:
    
    Decision: [What was decided]
    Date: [When]
    Decider: [Who was Accountable]
    Context: [Why this decision was needed]
    Options: [What was considered]
    Rationale: [Why this option]
    Tradeoffs: [What was given up]
    Review: [When to revisit]

---

Name

Decision Velocity

Description

Making decisions faster

When To Use

When decisions are taking too long

Implementation

Increasing Decision Speed

1. Speed Blockers

Blocker	Solution
Unclear owner	Assign one Accountable
Too many opinions	Reduce Consulted
Analysis paralysis	Time-box research
Fear of wrong	Embrace reversibility
Waiting for certainty	Accept uncertainty

2. Decision Deadlines

    Set explicit deadlines:
    
    "We will decide by [date]"
    "If no decision by [date], default is [X]"
    "We have [time] to gather input"
    
    Deadlines force decisions.

3. Default Options

    Pre-set defaults:
    
    If we can't decide → do nothing (or)
    If we can't decide → do X
    If we can't decide → flip coin
    
    Having a default prevents stalling.

4. Good Enough Standard

Situation	Good Enough Threshold
Reversible decision	60% confidence
High-learning decision	50% confidence
Irreversible decision	80% confidence
Low-stakes decision	Any preference

    Perfectionism kills speed.
    Good enough now > perfect later.
    Learn from doing, not analyzing.

Anti-Patterns

---

Name

Analysis Paralysis

Description

Over-analyzing instead of deciding

Why Bad

Decisions stall. Opportunities pass. Team frustrated.

What To Do Instead

Time-box analysis. Set decision deadlines. Embrace uncertainty.

---

Name

Consensus Seeking

Description

Waiting for everyone to agree

Why Bad

Slowest person sets pace. Decisions diluted. Accountability unclear.

What To Do Instead

Clear ownership. Disagree and commit. One decision maker.

---

Name

Reversibility Blindness

Description

Treating reversible decisions as permanent

Why Bad

Over-caution. Missed learning. Slow iteration.

What To Do Instead

Classify decision type first. Bias toward action for Type 2. Learn through doing.

Decision Frameworks - Sharp Edges

Framework Worship

Id

framework-worship

Summary

Following frameworks blindly instead of thinking

Severity

medium

Situation

Using frameworks without judgment

Why

Frameworks are tools. Context matters. Judgment still required.

Solution

Frameworks as Tools

When Frameworks Help

Situation	Framework Value
Complex decision	Structures thinking
Multiple stakeholders	Creates shared language
Emotional decision	Adds objectivity
Recurring decision	Ensures consistency

When Frameworks Hurt

Situation	Problem
Simple decision	Overhead
Obvious answer	Delay
Unique context	Doesn't fit
Gaming risk	False precision

Using Frameworks Wisely

  1. Choose framework that fits
  2. Adapt to your context
  3. Use as input, not answer
  4. Override when judgment says to
  5. Document the override
  
  Framework output is recommendation, not verdict.

Judgment Checkpoints

  After framework analysis:
  
  - Does this feel right?
  - What's the framework missing?
  - Would I bet my job on this?
  - What would I tell a friend?
  
  If gut and framework conflict → investigate why.

Symptoms

Following scores despite doubt
The matrix says...
Can't explain why

Detection Pattern

matrix says|framework output|scored highest

False Precision

Id

false-precision

Summary

Fake accuracy in uncertain decisions

Severity

medium

Situation

Precise numbers for imprecise inputs

Why

Numbers feel objective. Precision feels rigorous. Uncertainty is uncomfortable.

Solution

Honest Precision

Precision vs Accuracy

  "This option scores 4.2 vs 4.1"
  → Implies knowable difference
  → Reality: They're effectively tied
  
  "This option is roughly 2x better"
  → Honest about uncertainty
  → Useful for decision

Right Level of Precision

Input Quality	Output Precision
Hard data	Precise numbers
Estimates	Ranges
Guesses	Categories (High/Med/Low)
Unknown	Acknowledge uncertainty

Avoiding False Precision

  Instead of:
  - "This scores 3.7"
  
  Say:
  - "This is in the middle range"
  - "These two are effectively tied"
  - "Option A is clearly ahead"
  
  Match precision to confidence.

When Precise, When Not

Precise	Imprecise
Costs	Customer value
Timeline	Market timing
Revenue	Strategic importance
Effort	Risk probability

Symptoms

Decimal points on subjective scores
Debating small differences
Confidence beyond evidence

Detection Pattern

scored 3.7|difference of 0.2|precisely

Sunk Cost Trap

Id

sunk-cost-trap

Summary

Weighing past investment in future decisions

Severity

high

Situation

We've already invested so much...

Why

Investment feels wasted. Ego attached. Commitment bias.

Solution

Sunk Cost Discipline

The Rule

  Past investment is IRRELEVANT to future decisions.
  
  Only consider:
  - Future costs
  - Future benefits
  - Future alternatives
  
  What you've spent is spent.

Reframing Questions

Instead of	Ask
"We've invested $1M"	"What's the best use of the next $1?"
"We've spent 6 months"	"What's the best use of the next month?"
"We've already built X"	"Is X the best path forward?"

The Clean Slate Test

  Imagine you're starting fresh:
  
  "If we had to make this decision today,
   knowing what we know,
   ignoring what we've spent,
   what would we do?"
  
  If answer differs → you're in the sunk cost trap.

Permission to Pivot

  Pivoting is not failure:
  - You learned something
  - Conditions changed
  - Better option emerged
  
  Continuing on wrong path IS failure.

Symptoms

We've already...
It would be a waste to...
Reluctance to change direction

Detection Pattern

already invested|spent so much|waste to stop

Decision Avoidance

Id

decision-avoidance

Summary

Deferring decisions indefinitely

Severity

high

Situation

Decision keeps getting postponed

Why

Uncertainty is uncomfortable. Being wrong is scary. More data feels safer.

Solution

Forcing Decisions

Cost of Delay

  Every deferred decision costs:
  
  - Opportunity cost
  - Team uncertainty
  - Resource limbo
  - Momentum loss
  - Competitor advantage
  
  Not deciding IS deciding (to wait).

Decision Forcing Functions

Mechanism	How
Hard deadline	"We decide by Friday"
Default option	"If no decision, we do X"
Escalation	"If we can't decide, Y decides"
Burning platform	"We must decide because Z"

Minimum Viable Decision

  What's the smallest decision that moves us forward?
  
  Instead of:
  - Decide everything now
  
  Try:
  - Decide enough to take next step
  - Learn from that step
  - Decide next thing
  
  Incremental > comprehensive.

Accountability

  Assign decision owner:
  
  "Who is responsible for this decision?"
  "By when will you decide?"
  "What do you need to decide?"
  
  No owner = no decision.