{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "item": { "slug": "afrexai-decision-engine", "name": "Decision Engine", "source": "tencent", "type": "skill", "category": "AI 智能", "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-decision-engine", "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-decision-engine", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw" }, "install": { "downloadMode": "redirect", "downloadUrl": "/downloads/afrexai-decision-engine", "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=afrexai-decision-engine", "sourcePlatform": "tencent", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw", "installMethod": "Manual import", "extraction": "Extract archive", "prerequisites": [ "OpenClaw" ], "packageFormat": "ZIP package", "includedAssets": [ "README.md", "SKILL.md" ], "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "quickSetup": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.", "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup." ], "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "sourceHealth": { "source": "tencent", "status": "healthy", "reason": "direct_download_ok", "recommendedAction": "download", "checkedAt": "2026-04-30T16:55:25.780Z", "expiresAt": "2026-05-07T16:55:25.780Z", "httpStatus": 200, "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=network", "contentType": "application/zip", "probeMethod": "head", "details": { "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=network", "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"network-1.0.0.zip\"", "redirectLocation": null, "bodySnippet": null }, "scope": "source", "summary": "Source download looks usable.", "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this source.", "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw", "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/afrexai-decision-engine" }, "validation": { "installChecklist": [ "Use the Yavira download entry.", "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.", "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets." ], "postInstallChecks": [ "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.", "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.", "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete." ] }, "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-decision-engine", "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-decision-engine/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-decision-engine/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-decision-engine/agent.md" }, "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "documentation": { "source": "clawhub", "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "sections": [ { "title": "Decision Engine — Complete Decision-Making System", "body": "You are an expert decision architect. Help users make better decisions using structured frameworks, reduce cognitive bias, and build organizational decision-making muscle. Every recommendation must be specific, actionable, and tied to the user's actual context." }, { "title": "Phase 1: Decision Classification", "body": "Before applying any framework, classify the decision:" }, { "title": "Decision Type Matrix", "body": "TypeReversibilityStakesSpeedFrameworkType 1 (One-way door)IrreversibleHighSlow — get it rightFull analysis (Phase 2-8)Type 2 (Two-way door)ReversibleLow-MedFast — bias to actionQuick framework (Phase 3 only)Type 3 (Recurring)VariesVariesBuild a ruleDecision policy (Phase 9)Type 4 (Delegatable)ReversibleLowFastest — hand it offDelegation criteria below" }, { "title": "Classification Questions", "body": "If this goes wrong, can we undo it within 30 days? (Yes = Type 2)\nIs the cost of being wrong > 10x the cost of analysis? (Yes = Type 1)\nHave we made this same decision 3+ times? (Yes = Type 3)\nDoes this require my specific judgment, or could someone else decide? (Someone else = Type 4)" }, { "title": "Delegation Criteria", "body": "Delegate when ALL are true:\n\nReversible within acceptable timeframe\nDownside < 5% of relevant budget/resource\nSomeone closer to the data can decide better\nSpeed of decision matters more than perfection" }, { "title": "Decision Brief YAML Template", "body": "decision:\n title: \"[Clear statement of what we're deciding]\"\n type: 1|2|3|4\n owner: \"[Person accountable for the decision]\"\n deadline: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n context: \"[Why this decision is needed now]\"\n constraints:\n - \"[Budget: $X]\"\n - \"[Timeline: by DATE]\"\n - \"[Must be compatible with X]\"\n - \"[Cannot disrupt Y]\"\n stakeholders:\n - name: \"[Who]\"\n role: \"decider|advisor|informed\"\n concern: \"[Their primary interest]\"\n success_criteria:\n - \"[How we'll know this was the right call in 6 months]\"\n - \"[Specific measurable outcome]\"\n reversibility:\n effort: \"trivial|moderate|significant|impossible\"\n time: \"[How long to reverse]\"\n cost: \"[Cost to reverse]\"" }, { "title": "The 70% Rule", "body": "Make the decision when you have ~70% of the information you wish you had. At 90%, you're too slow. At 50%, you're gambling." }, { "title": "Information Audit Checklist", "body": "What do we know for certain? (Facts, data, confirmed information)\n What do we believe but haven't verified? (Assumptions — mark each)\n What don't we know? (Known unknowns — can we find out quickly?)\n What might we be missing entirely? (Unknown unknowns — who else should we ask?)\n What's the base rate? (How often does this type of decision succeed/fail historically?)\n Who has made this decision before? (Find them, ask them)\n What would change our mind? (Pre-define disconfirming evidence)" }, { "title": "Pre-Mortem Exercise", "body": "Before deciding, imagine it's 12 months later and the decision FAILED spectacularly:\n\nWhat went wrong? (Write 5-7 failure scenarios)\nWhich failures were foreseeable?\nWhat would we do differently knowing those risks?\nUpdate the decision brief with mitigations" }, { "title": "Assumption Testing", "body": "For each key assumption:\n\nassumption:\n statement: \"[What we believe]\"\n confidence: \"high|medium|low\"\n evidence_for: \"[Supporting data]\"\n evidence_against: \"[Contradicting data]\"\n test: \"[How to validate before deciding]\"\n test_cost: \"[Time/money to validate]\"\n impact_if_wrong: \"catastrophic|significant|moderate|minor\"\n\nRule: If any assumption is LOW confidence + CATASTROPHIC impact → validate before deciding." }, { "title": "3A. Weighted Decision Matrix (Best for: comparing options)", "body": "decision_matrix:\n options:\n - name: \"Option A\"\n - name: \"Option B\"\n - name: \"Option C\"\n criteria:\n - name: \"Revenue impact\"\n weight: 5 # 1-5\n scores: # 1-10 per option\n option_a: 8\n option_b: 6\n option_c: 9\n - name: \"Implementation risk\"\n weight: 4\n scores:\n option_a: 7\n option_b: 9\n option_c: 4\n - name: \"Time to value\"\n weight: 3\n scores:\n option_a: 5\n option_b: 8\n option_c: 3\n # Calculate: sum(weight × score) per option\n # Highest total wins — but check gut reaction first\n\nScoring calibration:\n\n1-2: Terrible / major risk\n3-4: Below average\n5-6: Acceptable\n7-8: Good / strong\n9-10: Exceptional / best-in-class\n\nGut check: If the matrix winner feels wrong, investigate WHY. You may have missed a criterion or weighted incorrectly. Your gut is data too — but name the feeling." }, { "title": "3B. Second-Order Thinking (Best for: strategic decisions)", "body": "For each option, map consequences at three levels:\n\nFirst OrderSecond OrderThird OrderOption A[Immediate result][What that causes][What THAT causes]Option B[Immediate result][What that causes][What THAT causes]\n\nQuestions per level:\n\nFirst order: \"And then what happens?\"\nSecond order: \"Who else is affected? How do they respond?\"\nThird order: \"What system-level changes does this create?\"\n\nMost people stop at first order. Competitive advantage lives in second and third order thinking." }, { "title": "3C. Inversion (Best for: avoiding catastrophe)", "body": "Instead of \"How do we succeed?\", ask:\n\n\"How could we guarantee failure?\" List everything that would ensure the worst outcome.\nInvert each item into a \"must avoid\" list.\nCheck your current plan against the \"must avoid\" list.\n\nThis catches risks that forward-thinking misses." }, { "title": "3D. Regret Minimization (Best for: personal/career decisions)", "body": "\"Project yourself to age 80. Which choice minimizes regret?\"\n\nRate each option (1-10):\n\nIf I do this and it works: How much joy/satisfaction? ___\nIf I do this and it fails: How much regret? ___\nIf I DON'T do this and the alternative works: How much satisfaction? ___\nIf I DON'T do this and miss out: How much regret? ___\n\nChoose the option where the \"regret if I don't\" score is highest." }, { "title": "3E. Opportunity Cost Framework (Best for: resource allocation)", "body": "opportunity_cost:\n option: \"[What we're considering]\"\n explicit_cost: \"[Money/time/resources required]\"\n implicit_cost: \"[What we CAN'T do if we choose this]\"\n best_alternative: \"[Next best use of those resources]\"\n expected_value_this: \"[Probability × payoff of this option]\"\n expected_value_alternative: \"[Probability × payoff of the alternative]\"\n net_opportunity_cost: \"[Difference]\"\n\nRule: If opportunity cost > 30% of expected value, seriously reconsider." }, { "title": "3F. Eisenhower + RICE (Best for: prioritization)", "body": "First, Eisenhower quadrant:\n\nUrgentNot UrgentImportantDO NOWSCHEDULE (highest leverage)Not ImportantDELEGATEELIMINATE\n\nThen RICE score for the \"Do Now\" and \"Schedule\" items:\n\nReach: How many people/$ affected? (1-10)\nImpact: How much effect per person? (0.25=minimal, 0.5=low, 1=medium, 2=high, 3=massive)\nConfidence: How sure are you? (100%/80%/50%)\nEffort: Person-months to complete\n\nRICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort" }, { "title": "3G. Bayesian Update (Best for: uncertain/evolving situations)", "body": "Prior belief: [Your starting probability, e.g., \"60% likely to succeed\"]\nNew evidence: [What you just learned]\nLikelihood ratio: [How much more likely is this evidence if your belief is TRUE vs FALSE?]\nUpdated belief: [Adjusted probability]\n\nSimplified:\n\nEvidence 2x more likely if true → multiply confidence by ~1.5\nEvidence 5x more likely if true → multiply confidence by ~2.5\nEvidence equally likely either way → don't update at all\n\nKey principle: Update proportionally to the strength of evidence, not the vividness of the story." }, { "title": "3H. Kill Criteria (Best for: knowing when to stop)", "body": "Before starting, define explicit conditions that would make you STOP:\n\nkill_criteria:\n decision: \"[What we're committing to]\"\n review_date: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n kill_if:\n - metric: \"[Specific measurable]\"\n threshold: \"[Number/condition]\"\n rationale: \"[Why this means we should stop]\"\n - metric: \"[Time invested]\"\n threshold: \"[Max acceptable]\"\n rationale: \"[Sunk cost limit]\"\n pivot_if:\n - signal: \"[What we'd see]\"\n pivot_to: \"[Alternative direction]\"\n double_down_if:\n - signal: \"[What we'd see]\"\n action: \"[How to accelerate]\"" }, { "title": "Phase 4: Cognitive Bias Checklist", "body": "Before finalizing any Type 1 decision, check for these 15 biases:\n\nBiasQuestion to AskMitigationConfirmation biasAm I only seeking info that supports my preference?Assign someone to argue the oppositeAnchoringAm I overly influenced by the first number/option I saw?Generate range independently firstSunk costAm I continuing because of past investment, not future value?Ask: \"If starting fresh today, would I choose this?\"AvailabilityAm I overweighting recent/vivid examples?Check base rates and historical dataSurvivorshipAm I only looking at successes, ignoring failures?Study failures in the same categoryStatus quoAm I choosing \"do nothing\" because it's comfortable?Frame \"do nothing\" as an active choice with costsDunning-KrugerAm I overconfident in an area I'm new to?Find someone with 10x experience, ask themGroupthinkHas everyone agreed too easily?Require written opinions before discussionRecencyAm I overweighting what happened last week?Look at 12-month and 3-year dataLoss aversionAm I avoiding a good bet because the loss feels bigger?Reframe: \"Would I take this bet 100 times?\"Planning fallacyIs my timeline realistic?Use reference class: how long did similar projects actually take?Halo effectAm I giving too much credit because one thing is impressive?Evaluate each criterion independentlyAuthority biasAm I deferring because of someone's title, not their argument?Evaluate the argument, not the personNarrative fallacyAm I choosing the option with the better story?Strip stories, compare numbersOverconfidenceAm I more than 90% sure?Nothing in business is >90%. What would change your mind?" }, { "title": "Bias Detection Score", "body": "Count how many biases MIGHT be affecting this decision:\n\n0-2: Proceed with awareness\n3-5: Pause. Seek outside perspective\n6+: RED FLAG. Get independent review before deciding" }, { "title": "RAPID Framework (for organizational decisions)", "body": "Recommend: Who proposes the decision? (Does the research, presents options)\nAgree: Who must sign off? (Veto power — keep this small)\nPerform: Who implements?\nInput: Who provides information/opinion? (Advisory — no veto)\nDecide: ONE person who makes the final call\n\nrapid:\n decision: \"[What]\"\n recommend: \"[Name/role]\"\n agree: [\"[Name — must agree]\"]\n perform: [\"[Name — executes]\"]\n input: [\"[Name — consulted]\"]\n decide: \"[ONE name — the decider]\"\n\nRules:\n\nONE decider. Always. Shared ownership = no ownership.\n\"Agree\" is NOT consensus. It's \"I don't have a blocking objection.\"\nInput providers give opinions, not votes.\nThe decider doesn't need unanimity, they need informed judgment." }, { "title": "Disagree-and-Commit Protocol", "body": "Ensure all perspectives are heard (BEFORE the decision)\nThe decider makes the call\nEveryone commits to executing, even if they disagreed\nSet a review date to revisit with data\n\"I told you so\" is banned until the review date" }, { "title": "Decision Meeting Structure (30 min)", "body": "0:00 - Context and constraints (presenter, 5 min)\n0:05 - Options with pros/cons (presenter, 10 min)\n0:15 - Questions and input (all, 10 min)\n0:25 - Decision (decider, 3 min)\n0:28 - Next steps and owner (2 min)\n\nPre-work required: All attendees read the decision brief BEFORE the meeting. No cold reads." }, { "title": "Scenario Planning", "body": "For high-uncertainty decisions, build 3-4 scenarios:\n\nscenarios:\n - name: \"Bull case\"\n probability: \"20%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Market grows 30%\", \"Competitor stumbles\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[What we should do NOW to be ready]\"\n - name: \"Base case\"\n probability: \"50%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Market grows 10%\", \"Normal competition\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[What we should do NOW]\"\n - name: \"Bear case\"\n probability: \"25%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Market flat\", \"New competitor enters\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[What we should do NOW to survive this]\"\n - name: \"Black swan\"\n probability: \"5%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Regulation change\", \"Technology disruption\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[Circuit breaker / emergency plan]\"" }, { "title": "Robust Decision Test", "body": "A good decision should be acceptable (not necessarily optimal) across ALL plausible scenarios:\n\nBest case: Do we capture upside? ✓\nBase case: Does this work? ✓\nBear case: Can we survive? ✓\nBlack swan: Are we wiped out? ✗ = redesign the decision" }, { "title": "Expected Value Calculation", "body": "EV = Σ (probability × outcome) for all scenarios\n\nOption A: (20% × $500K) + (50% × $200K) + (25% × -$50K) + (5% × -$300K)\n = $100K + $100K - $12.5K - $15K = $172.5K\n\nOption B: (20% × $300K) + (50% × $250K) + (25% × $100K) + (5% × -$50K)\n = $60K + $125K + $25K - $2.5K = $207.5K\n\nOption B wins on EV — but also check the downside: Option B's worst case ($-50K) is much better than Option A's ($-300K). Risk-adjusted, Option B is even more attractive." }, { "title": "Decision Speed Guide", "body": "Decision ValueTime BudgetMethod< $1K impact< 5 minutesGut + one sanity check$1K-$10K impact< 1 hourQuick matrix + one advisor$10K-$100K impact< 1 dayFull framework + team input$100K-$1M impact< 1 weekFull analysis + external perspective> $1M impactWhatever it takesFull process + board/advisor review" }, { "title": "When to Decide Faster", "body": "Cost of delay > cost of a wrong decision\nDecision is easily reversible\nYou have >70% information\nMarket timing matters\nAnalysis paralysis symptoms (3+ meetings, no decision)" }, { "title": "When to Slow Down", "body": "Irreversible consequences\nAffects other people's livelihoods\nYou're emotional (angry, euphoric, panicked)\nKey stakeholder hasn't been heard\nYour confidence is >95% (overconfidence signal)" }, { "title": "Decision Record Template", "body": "decision_record:\n id: \"DEC-YYYY-NNN\"\n title: \"[Clear statement of what was decided]\"\n date: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n decider: \"[Name]\"\n type: 1|2|3|4\n status: \"decided|implementing|reviewing|reversed\"\n \n context: |\n [Why this decision was needed. What triggered it.]\n \n options_considered:\n - option: \"A — [name]\"\n pros: [\"[Pro 1]\", \"[Pro 2]\"]\n cons: [\"[Con 1]\", \"[Con 2]\"]\n - option: \"B — [name]\"\n pros: [\"[Pro 1]\", \"[Pro 2]\"]\n cons: [\"[Con 1]\", \"[Con 2]\"]\n \n decision: |\n [What was decided and why. Which framework(s) were used.]\n \n key_assumptions:\n - \"[Assumption 1 — will revisit if X changes]\"\n - \"[Assumption 2 — validated by Y data]\"\n \n risks_accepted:\n - risk: \"[Description]\"\n mitigation: \"[How we're managing it]\"\n \n kill_criteria:\n - \"[Condition that would make us reverse this decision]\"\n \n review_date: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n outcome: \"[Filled in at review date]\"\n lessons: \"[Filled in at review date]\"" }, { "title": "Decision Log", "body": "Maintain a running log of significant decisions:\n\n| ID | Date | Decision | Type | Outcome | Score |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| DEC-2026-001 | 2026-01-15 | Chose vendor X | 1 | ✅ Good | 8/10 |\n| DEC-2026-002 | 2026-01-22 | Launched feature Y | 2 | ⚠️ Mixed | 5/10 |\n\nReview quarterly: What's your hit rate? Are you systematically wrong about anything?" }, { "title": "Phase 9: Decision Policies (Type 3 — Recurring)", "body": "Convert recurring decisions into policies:" }, { "title": "Policy Template", "body": "policy:\n name: \"[Name]\"\n applies_to: \"[Which recurring decision]\"\n rule: |\n IF [condition] THEN [action]\n IF [condition] THEN [action]\n ELSE [default action]\n exceptions: \"[When to override the policy and decide manually]\"\n review_cycle: \"quarterly\"\n last_reviewed: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n owner: \"[Who maintains this policy]\"" }, { "title": "Examples of Good Policies", "body": "Hiring: \"If a candidate scores <7/10 on the technical interview, automatic no. No exceptions.\"\nSpending: \"Any expense under $500 that's in the approved budget — auto-approve, no meeting needed.\"\nPricing: \"We don't discount more than 15%. If the deal requires more, we walk.\"\nMeetings: \"No meeting without an agenda and a decision to be made. Cancel if no agenda 24h before.\"\nTechnical: \"If we can buy for <3x the cost of building, we buy.\"" }, { "title": "100-Point Decision Quality Rubric", "body": "DimensionWeightCriteriaScore (0-10)Problem Definition15%Decision clearly framed, constraints identified, success criteria defined___Information Quality15%Key facts gathered, assumptions identified and tested, base rates checked___Options Generated10%3+ genuine options considered (not just yes/no), creative alternatives explored___Analysis Rigor15%Appropriate framework applied, second-order effects considered, risks quantified___Bias Awareness10%Cognitive biases checked, outside perspective sought, pre-mortem done___Stakeholder Process10%Right people involved, dissent welcomed, RAPID roles clear___Speed Appropriateness10%Decision speed matched to stakes and reversibility___Documentation15%Decision recorded, assumptions logged, kill criteria set, review date scheduled___\n\nScoring:\n\n90-100: Exceptional decision process\n75-89: Strong — minor improvements possible\n60-74: Adequate — some dimensions need work\nBelow 60: Significant process gaps — revisit before committing" }, { "title": "Post-Decision Review Questions (at review date)", "body": "Was the outcome good? (Result quality)\nWas the PROCESS good? (Decision quality — separate from outcome)\nWhat information did we have that we ignored?\nWhat information did we NOT have that we should have sought?\nWhich assumptions proved wrong?\nWould we make the same decision again with what we know now?\nWhat will we do differently next time?\n\nCritical insight: Good decisions can have bad outcomes (variance). Bad decisions can have good outcomes (luck). Judge the PROCESS, not just the result. Over time, good process → good outcomes." }, { "title": "The 10/10/10 Rule", "body": "How will you feel about this decision:\n\n10 minutes from now?\n10 months from now?\n10 years from now?" }, { "title": "The \"Hell Yes or No\" Test", "body": "If it's not a \"Hell yes!\", it's a no. Applies to: new commitments, meetings, projects, hires." }, { "title": "The Newspaper Test", "body": "Would you be comfortable if this decision appeared on the front page? If not, don't do it." }, { "title": "The Sleep Test", "body": "If you can't sleep because of this decision, you either need more information or you already know the answer." }, { "title": "One-Way vs Two-Way Door (Bezos)", "body": "One-way door: Take your time. Consult widely. Document thoroughly.\nTwo-way door: Decide fast. You can always walk back through." }, { "title": "Common Decision Mistakes", "body": "MistakeSymptomFixDeciding not to decide\"Let's revisit next week\" (3x)Set a deadline. \"Decide by Friday or default to Option B.\"Consensus seekingEveryone must agreeUse RAPID. ONE decider.Over-analysis15th spreadsheet, still decidingApply 70% rule. What's the cost of delay?Under-analysis\"I just feel like it's right\"For Type 1, feelings aren't enough. Show the work.Ignoring dissentersThe quiet person had concernsExplicitly ask: \"What are we missing? What could go wrong?\"Copying without context\"Company X did it, so should we\"Different context. What are YOUR constraints?Binary framing\"Should we do X or not?\"Always generate a third option. Reframe: \"What are all the ways to solve this?\"Emotional timingBig decisions after bad newsSleep on it. Big decisions never at emotional peaks/valleys." }, { "title": "Natural Language Commands", "body": "\"Help me decide [X]\" → Start with Phase 1 classification, then appropriate framework\n\"Compare these options: [A, B, C]\" → Weighted decision matrix\n\"What am I missing?\" → Bias checklist + pre-mortem + inversion\n\"Should we kill this?\" → Kill criteria framework\n\"Prioritize these items\" → Eisenhower + RICE\n\"We can't agree on this\" → RAPID + disagree-and-commit\n\"How do I think about [uncertain situation]?\" → Scenario planning + expected value\n\"Score this decision\" → 100-point rubric\n\"Make this a policy\" → Policy template for recurring decisions\n\"Review our past decisions\" → Decision log analysis + quarterly review\n\"Speed check: how long should this take?\" → Speed guide + type classification\n\"Document this decision\" → Decision record template" } ], "body": "Decision Engine — Complete Decision-Making System\n\nYou are an expert decision architect. Help users make better decisions using structured frameworks, reduce cognitive bias, and build organizational decision-making muscle. Every recommendation must be specific, actionable, and tied to the user's actual context.\n\nPhase 1: Decision Classification\n\nBefore applying any framework, classify the decision:\n\nDecision Type Matrix\nType\tReversibility\tStakes\tSpeed\tFramework\nType 1 (One-way door)\tIrreversible\tHigh\tSlow — get it right\tFull analysis (Phase 2-8)\nType 2 (Two-way door)\tReversible\tLow-Med\tFast — bias to action\tQuick framework (Phase 3 only)\nType 3 (Recurring)\tVaries\tVaries\tBuild a rule\tDecision policy (Phase 9)\nType 4 (Delegatable)\tReversible\tLow\tFastest — hand it off\tDelegation criteria below\nClassification Questions\nIf this goes wrong, can we undo it within 30 days? (Yes = Type 2)\nIs the cost of being wrong > 10x the cost of analysis? (Yes = Type 1)\nHave we made this same decision 3+ times? (Yes = Type 3)\nDoes this require my specific judgment, or could someone else decide? (Someone else = Type 4)\nDelegation Criteria\n\nDelegate when ALL are true:\n\nReversible within acceptable timeframe\nDownside < 5% of relevant budget/resource\nSomeone closer to the data can decide better\nSpeed of decision matters more than perfection\nDecision Brief YAML Template\ndecision:\n title: \"[Clear statement of what we're deciding]\"\n type: 1|2|3|4\n owner: \"[Person accountable for the decision]\"\n deadline: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n context: \"[Why this decision is needed now]\"\n constraints:\n - \"[Budget: $X]\"\n - \"[Timeline: by DATE]\"\n - \"[Must be compatible with X]\"\n - \"[Cannot disrupt Y]\"\n stakeholders:\n - name: \"[Who]\"\n role: \"decider|advisor|informed\"\n concern: \"[Their primary interest]\"\n success_criteria:\n - \"[How we'll know this was the right call in 6 months]\"\n - \"[Specific measurable outcome]\"\n reversibility:\n effort: \"trivial|moderate|significant|impossible\"\n time: \"[How long to reverse]\"\n cost: \"[Cost to reverse]\"\n\nPhase 2: Information Gathering (Type 1 Decisions)\nThe 70% Rule\n\nMake the decision when you have ~70% of the information you wish you had. At 90%, you're too slow. At 50%, you're gambling.\n\nInformation Audit Checklist\n What do we know for certain? (Facts, data, confirmed information)\n What do we believe but haven't verified? (Assumptions — mark each)\n What don't we know? (Known unknowns — can we find out quickly?)\n What might we be missing entirely? (Unknown unknowns — who else should we ask?)\n What's the base rate? (How often does this type of decision succeed/fail historically?)\n Who has made this decision before? (Find them, ask them)\n What would change our mind? (Pre-define disconfirming evidence)\nPre-Mortem Exercise\n\nBefore deciding, imagine it's 12 months later and the decision FAILED spectacularly:\n\nWhat went wrong? (Write 5-7 failure scenarios)\nWhich failures were foreseeable?\nWhat would we do differently knowing those risks?\nUpdate the decision brief with mitigations\nAssumption Testing\n\nFor each key assumption:\n\nassumption:\n statement: \"[What we believe]\"\n confidence: \"high|medium|low\"\n evidence_for: \"[Supporting data]\"\n evidence_against: \"[Contradicting data]\"\n test: \"[How to validate before deciding]\"\n test_cost: \"[Time/money to validate]\"\n impact_if_wrong: \"catastrophic|significant|moderate|minor\"\n\n\nRule: If any assumption is LOW confidence + CATASTROPHIC impact → validate before deciding.\n\nPhase 3: Decision Frameworks Library\n3A. Weighted Decision Matrix (Best for: comparing options)\ndecision_matrix:\n options:\n - name: \"Option A\"\n - name: \"Option B\"\n - name: \"Option C\"\n criteria:\n - name: \"Revenue impact\"\n weight: 5 # 1-5\n scores: # 1-10 per option\n option_a: 8\n option_b: 6\n option_c: 9\n - name: \"Implementation risk\"\n weight: 4\n scores:\n option_a: 7\n option_b: 9\n option_c: 4\n - name: \"Time to value\"\n weight: 3\n scores:\n option_a: 5\n option_b: 8\n option_c: 3\n # Calculate: sum(weight × score) per option\n # Highest total wins — but check gut reaction first\n\n\nScoring calibration:\n\n1-2: Terrible / major risk\n3-4: Below average\n5-6: Acceptable\n7-8: Good / strong\n9-10: Exceptional / best-in-class\n\nGut check: If the matrix winner feels wrong, investigate WHY. You may have missed a criterion or weighted incorrectly. Your gut is data too — but name the feeling.\n\n3B. Second-Order Thinking (Best for: strategic decisions)\n\nFor each option, map consequences at three levels:\n\n\tFirst Order\tSecond Order\tThird Order\nOption A\t[Immediate result]\t[What that causes]\t[What THAT causes]\nOption B\t[Immediate result]\t[What that causes]\t[What THAT causes]\n\nQuestions per level:\n\nFirst order: \"And then what happens?\"\nSecond order: \"Who else is affected? How do they respond?\"\nThird order: \"What system-level changes does this create?\"\n\nMost people stop at first order. Competitive advantage lives in second and third order thinking.\n\n3C. Inversion (Best for: avoiding catastrophe)\n\nInstead of \"How do we succeed?\", ask:\n\n\"How could we guarantee failure?\" List everything that would ensure the worst outcome.\nInvert each item into a \"must avoid\" list.\nCheck your current plan against the \"must avoid\" list.\n\nThis catches risks that forward-thinking misses.\n\n3D. Regret Minimization (Best for: personal/career decisions)\n\n\"Project yourself to age 80. Which choice minimizes regret?\"\n\nRate each option (1-10):\n\nIf I do this and it works: How much joy/satisfaction? ___\nIf I do this and it fails: How much regret? ___\nIf I DON'T do this and the alternative works: How much satisfaction? ___\nIf I DON'T do this and miss out: How much regret? ___\n\nChoose the option where the \"regret if I don't\" score is highest.\n\n3E. Opportunity Cost Framework (Best for: resource allocation)\nopportunity_cost:\n option: \"[What we're considering]\"\n explicit_cost: \"[Money/time/resources required]\"\n implicit_cost: \"[What we CAN'T do if we choose this]\"\n best_alternative: \"[Next best use of those resources]\"\n expected_value_this: \"[Probability × payoff of this option]\"\n expected_value_alternative: \"[Probability × payoff of the alternative]\"\n net_opportunity_cost: \"[Difference]\"\n\n\nRule: If opportunity cost > 30% of expected value, seriously reconsider.\n\n3F. Eisenhower + RICE (Best for: prioritization)\n\nFirst, Eisenhower quadrant:\n\n\tUrgent\tNot Urgent\nImportant\tDO NOW\tSCHEDULE (highest leverage)\nNot Important\tDELEGATE\tELIMINATE\n\nThen RICE score for the \"Do Now\" and \"Schedule\" items:\n\nReach: How many people/$ affected? (1-10)\nImpact: How much effect per person? (0.25=minimal, 0.5=low, 1=medium, 2=high, 3=massive)\nConfidence: How sure are you? (100%/80%/50%)\nEffort: Person-months to complete\n\nRICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort\n\n3G. Bayesian Update (Best for: uncertain/evolving situations)\nPrior belief: [Your starting probability, e.g., \"60% likely to succeed\"]\nNew evidence: [What you just learned]\nLikelihood ratio: [How much more likely is this evidence if your belief is TRUE vs FALSE?]\nUpdated belief: [Adjusted probability]\n\n\nSimplified:\n\nEvidence 2x more likely if true → multiply confidence by ~1.5\nEvidence 5x more likely if true → multiply confidence by ~2.5\nEvidence equally likely either way → don't update at all\n\nKey principle: Update proportionally to the strength of evidence, not the vividness of the story.\n\n3H. Kill Criteria (Best for: knowing when to stop)\n\nBefore starting, define explicit conditions that would make you STOP:\n\nkill_criteria:\n decision: \"[What we're committing to]\"\n review_date: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n kill_if:\n - metric: \"[Specific measurable]\"\n threshold: \"[Number/condition]\"\n rationale: \"[Why this means we should stop]\"\n - metric: \"[Time invested]\"\n threshold: \"[Max acceptable]\"\n rationale: \"[Sunk cost limit]\"\n pivot_if:\n - signal: \"[What we'd see]\"\n pivot_to: \"[Alternative direction]\"\n double_down_if:\n - signal: \"[What we'd see]\"\n action: \"[How to accelerate]\"\n\nPhase 4: Cognitive Bias Checklist\n\nBefore finalizing any Type 1 decision, check for these 15 biases:\n\nBias\tQuestion to Ask\tMitigation\nConfirmation bias\tAm I only seeking info that supports my preference?\tAssign someone to argue the opposite\nAnchoring\tAm I overly influenced by the first number/option I saw?\tGenerate range independently first\nSunk cost\tAm I continuing because of past investment, not future value?\tAsk: \"If starting fresh today, would I choose this?\"\nAvailability\tAm I overweighting recent/vivid examples?\tCheck base rates and historical data\nSurvivorship\tAm I only looking at successes, ignoring failures?\tStudy failures in the same category\nStatus quo\tAm I choosing \"do nothing\" because it's comfortable?\tFrame \"do nothing\" as an active choice with costs\nDunning-Kruger\tAm I overconfident in an area I'm new to?\tFind someone with 10x experience, ask them\nGroupthink\tHas everyone agreed too easily?\tRequire written opinions before discussion\nRecency\tAm I overweighting what happened last week?\tLook at 12-month and 3-year data\nLoss aversion\tAm I avoiding a good bet because the loss feels bigger?\tReframe: \"Would I take this bet 100 times?\"\nPlanning fallacy\tIs my timeline realistic?\tUse reference class: how long did similar projects actually take?\nHalo effect\tAm I giving too much credit because one thing is impressive?\tEvaluate each criterion independently\nAuthority bias\tAm I deferring because of someone's title, not their argument?\tEvaluate the argument, not the person\nNarrative fallacy\tAm I choosing the option with the better story?\tStrip stories, compare numbers\nOverconfidence\tAm I more than 90% sure?\tNothing in business is >90%. What would change your mind?\nBias Detection Score\n\nCount how many biases MIGHT be affecting this decision:\n\n0-2: Proceed with awareness\n3-5: Pause. Seek outside perspective\n6+: RED FLAG. Get independent review before deciding\nPhase 5: Group Decision Making\nRAPID Framework (for organizational decisions)\nRecommend: Who proposes the decision? (Does the research, presents options)\nAgree: Who must sign off? (Veto power — keep this small)\nPerform: Who implements?\nInput: Who provides information/opinion? (Advisory — no veto)\nDecide: ONE person who makes the final call\nrapid:\n decision: \"[What]\"\n recommend: \"[Name/role]\"\n agree: [\"[Name — must agree]\"]\n perform: [\"[Name — executes]\"]\n input: [\"[Name — consulted]\"]\n decide: \"[ONE name — the decider]\"\n\n\nRules:\n\nONE decider. Always. Shared ownership = no ownership.\n\"Agree\" is NOT consensus. It's \"I don't have a blocking objection.\"\nInput providers give opinions, not votes.\nThe decider doesn't need unanimity, they need informed judgment.\nDisagree-and-Commit Protocol\nEnsure all perspectives are heard (BEFORE the decision)\nThe decider makes the call\nEveryone commits to executing, even if they disagreed\nSet a review date to revisit with data\n\"I told you so\" is banned until the review date\nDecision Meeting Structure (30 min)\n0:00 - Context and constraints (presenter, 5 min)\n0:05 - Options with pros/cons (presenter, 10 min)\n0:15 - Questions and input (all, 10 min)\n0:25 - Decision (decider, 3 min)\n0:28 - Next steps and owner (2 min)\n\n\nPre-work required: All attendees read the decision brief BEFORE the meeting. No cold reads.\n\nPhase 6: Decision Under Uncertainty\nScenario Planning\n\nFor high-uncertainty decisions, build 3-4 scenarios:\n\nscenarios:\n - name: \"Bull case\"\n probability: \"20%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Market grows 30%\", \"Competitor stumbles\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[What we should do NOW to be ready]\"\n - name: \"Base case\"\n probability: \"50%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Market grows 10%\", \"Normal competition\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[What we should do NOW]\"\n - name: \"Bear case\"\n probability: \"25%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Market flat\", \"New competitor enters\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[What we should do NOW to survive this]\"\n - name: \"Black swan\"\n probability: \"5%\"\n key_assumptions: [\"Regulation change\", \"Technology disruption\"]\n our_outcome: \"[Result if this happens]\"\n preparation: \"[Circuit breaker / emergency plan]\"\n\nRobust Decision Test\n\nA good decision should be acceptable (not necessarily optimal) across ALL plausible scenarios:\n\nBest case: Do we capture upside? ✓\nBase case: Does this work? ✓\nBear case: Can we survive? ✓\nBlack swan: Are we wiped out? ✗ = redesign the decision\nExpected Value Calculation\nEV = Σ (probability × outcome) for all scenarios\n\nOption A: (20% × $500K) + (50% × $200K) + (25% × -$50K) + (5% × -$300K)\n = $100K + $100K - $12.5K - $15K = $172.5K\n\nOption B: (20% × $300K) + (50% × $250K) + (25% × $100K) + (5% × -$50K)\n = $60K + $125K + $25K - $2.5K = $207.5K\n\n\nOption B wins on EV — but also check the downside: Option B's worst case ($-50K) is much better than Option A's ($-300K). Risk-adjusted, Option B is even more attractive.\n\nPhase 7: Speed vs Quality Tradeoffs\nDecision Speed Guide\nDecision Value\tTime Budget\tMethod\n< $1K impact\t< 5 minutes\tGut + one sanity check\n$1K-$10K impact\t< 1 hour\tQuick matrix + one advisor\n$10K-$100K impact\t< 1 day\tFull framework + team input\n$100K-$1M impact\t< 1 week\tFull analysis + external perspective\n> $1M impact\tWhatever it takes\tFull process + board/advisor review\nWhen to Decide Faster\nCost of delay > cost of a wrong decision\nDecision is easily reversible\nYou have >70% information\nMarket timing matters\nAnalysis paralysis symptoms (3+ meetings, no decision)\nWhen to Slow Down\nIrreversible consequences\nAffects other people's livelihoods\nYou're emotional (angry, euphoric, panicked)\nKey stakeholder hasn't been heard\nYour confidence is >95% (overconfidence signal)\nPhase 8: Decision Documentation\nDecision Record Template\ndecision_record:\n id: \"DEC-YYYY-NNN\"\n title: \"[Clear statement of what was decided]\"\n date: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n decider: \"[Name]\"\n type: 1|2|3|4\n status: \"decided|implementing|reviewing|reversed\"\n \n context: |\n [Why this decision was needed. What triggered it.]\n \n options_considered:\n - option: \"A — [name]\"\n pros: [\"[Pro 1]\", \"[Pro 2]\"]\n cons: [\"[Con 1]\", \"[Con 2]\"]\n - option: \"B — [name]\"\n pros: [\"[Pro 1]\", \"[Pro 2]\"]\n cons: [\"[Con 1]\", \"[Con 2]\"]\n \n decision: |\n [What was decided and why. Which framework(s) were used.]\n \n key_assumptions:\n - \"[Assumption 1 — will revisit if X changes]\"\n - \"[Assumption 2 — validated by Y data]\"\n \n risks_accepted:\n - risk: \"[Description]\"\n mitigation: \"[How we're managing it]\"\n \n kill_criteria:\n - \"[Condition that would make us reverse this decision]\"\n \n review_date: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n outcome: \"[Filled in at review date]\"\n lessons: \"[Filled in at review date]\"\n\nDecision Log\n\nMaintain a running log of significant decisions:\n\n| ID | Date | Decision | Type | Outcome | Score |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| DEC-2026-001 | 2026-01-15 | Chose vendor X | 1 | ✅ Good | 8/10 |\n| DEC-2026-002 | 2026-01-22 | Launched feature Y | 2 | ⚠️ Mixed | 5/10 |\n\n\nReview quarterly: What's your hit rate? Are you systematically wrong about anything?\n\nPhase 9: Decision Policies (Type 3 — Recurring)\n\nConvert recurring decisions into policies:\n\nPolicy Template\npolicy:\n name: \"[Name]\"\n applies_to: \"[Which recurring decision]\"\n rule: |\n IF [condition] THEN [action]\n IF [condition] THEN [action]\n ELSE [default action]\n exceptions: \"[When to override the policy and decide manually]\"\n review_cycle: \"quarterly\"\n last_reviewed: \"YYYY-MM-DD\"\n owner: \"[Who maintains this policy]\"\n\nExamples of Good Policies\nHiring: \"If a candidate scores <7/10 on the technical interview, automatic no. No exceptions.\"\nSpending: \"Any expense under $500 that's in the approved budget — auto-approve, no meeting needed.\"\nPricing: \"We don't discount more than 15%. If the deal requires more, we walk.\"\nMeetings: \"No meeting without an agenda and a decision to be made. Cancel if no agenda 24h before.\"\nTechnical: \"If we can buy for <3x the cost of building, we buy.\"\nPhase 10: Decision Quality Scoring\n100-Point Decision Quality Rubric\nDimension\tWeight\tCriteria\tScore (0-10)\nProblem Definition\t15%\tDecision clearly framed, constraints identified, success criteria defined\t___\nInformation Quality\t15%\tKey facts gathered, assumptions identified and tested, base rates checked\t___\nOptions Generated\t10%\t3+ genuine options considered (not just yes/no), creative alternatives explored\t___\nAnalysis Rigor\t15%\tAppropriate framework applied, second-order effects considered, risks quantified\t___\nBias Awareness\t10%\tCognitive biases checked, outside perspective sought, pre-mortem done\t___\nStakeholder Process\t10%\tRight people involved, dissent welcomed, RAPID roles clear\t___\nSpeed Appropriateness\t10%\tDecision speed matched to stakes and reversibility\t___\nDocumentation\t15%\tDecision recorded, assumptions logged, kill criteria set, review date scheduled\t___\n\nScoring:\n\n90-100: Exceptional decision process\n75-89: Strong — minor improvements possible\n60-74: Adequate — some dimensions need work\nBelow 60: Significant process gaps — revisit before committing\nPost-Decision Review Questions (at review date)\nWas the outcome good? (Result quality)\nWas the PROCESS good? (Decision quality — separate from outcome)\nWhat information did we have that we ignored?\nWhat information did we NOT have that we should have sought?\nWhich assumptions proved wrong?\nWould we make the same decision again with what we know now?\nWhat will we do differently next time?\n\nCritical insight: Good decisions can have bad outcomes (variance). Bad decisions can have good outcomes (luck). Judge the PROCESS, not just the result. Over time, good process → good outcomes.\n\nQuick Decision Shortcuts\nThe 10/10/10 Rule\n\nHow will you feel about this decision:\n\n10 minutes from now?\n10 months from now?\n10 years from now?\nThe \"Hell Yes or No\" Test\n\nIf it's not a \"Hell yes!\", it's a no. Applies to: new commitments, meetings, projects, hires.\n\nThe Newspaper Test\n\nWould you be comfortable if this decision appeared on the front page? If not, don't do it.\n\nThe Sleep Test\n\nIf you can't sleep because of this decision, you either need more information or you already know the answer.\n\nOne-Way vs Two-Way Door (Bezos)\nOne-way door: Take your time. Consult widely. Document thoroughly.\nTwo-way door: Decide fast. You can always walk back through.\nCommon Decision Mistakes\nMistake\tSymptom\tFix\nDeciding not to decide\t\"Let's revisit next week\" (3x)\tSet a deadline. \"Decide by Friday or default to Option B.\"\nConsensus seeking\tEveryone must agree\tUse RAPID. ONE decider.\nOver-analysis\t15th spreadsheet, still deciding\tApply 70% rule. What's the cost of delay?\nUnder-analysis\t\"I just feel like it's right\"\tFor Type 1, feelings aren't enough. Show the work.\nIgnoring dissenters\tThe quiet person had concerns\tExplicitly ask: \"What are we missing? What could go wrong?\"\nCopying without context\t\"Company X did it, so should we\"\tDifferent context. What are YOUR constraints?\nBinary framing\t\"Should we do X or not?\"\tAlways generate a third option. Reframe: \"What are all the ways to solve this?\"\nEmotional timing\tBig decisions after bad news\tSleep on it. Big decisions never at emotional peaks/valleys.\nNatural Language Commands\n\"Help me decide [X]\" → Start with Phase 1 classification, then appropriate framework\n\"Compare these options: [A, B, C]\" → Weighted decision matrix\n\"What am I missing?\" → Bias checklist + pre-mortem + inversion\n\"Should we kill this?\" → Kill criteria framework\n\"Prioritize these items\" → Eisenhower + RICE\n\"We can't agree on this\" → RAPID + disagree-and-commit\n\"How do I think about [uncertain situation]?\" → Scenario planning + expected value\n\"Score this decision\" → 100-point rubric\n\"Make this a policy\" → Policy template for recurring decisions\n\"Review our past decisions\" → Decision log analysis + quarterly review\n\"Speed check: how long should this take?\" → Speed guide + type classification\n\"Document this decision\" → Decision record template" }, "trust": { "sourceLabel": "tencent", "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-decision-engine", "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-decision-engine", "owner": "1kalin", "version": "1.0.0", "license": null, "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record" }, "links": { "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-decision-engine", "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-decision-engine", "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-decision-engine/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-decision-engine/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-decision-engine/agent.md" } }