# Personal Boardroom

> Stress-test a difficult career, startup, study, money, product, or life decision through a small board of explicit decision lenses, then synthesize one evidence-weighted recommendation. Use when the user is torn between options, has several identities or goals in conflict, keeps receiving contradictory advice, or wants more than a generic trade-off list.

- Skill: `fairy123456789/personal-boardroom` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add fairy123456789/personal-boardroom`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/fairy123456789/personal-boardroom/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: MIT
- Author: FAIRY123456789 (https://skillmd.com/u/fairy123456789)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/fairy123456789/personal-boardroom

---


# Personal Boardroom

Multiple perspectives are useful only if they expose different objectives, information, and risks.

## Default seats

Adapt the seats to the decision. Typical lenses:

- **Operator:** What can actually be executed with current time and resources?
- **Builder or engineer:** What compounds capability and creates hard-to-fake skill?
- **User or customer:** What creates external value?
- **Investor or resource allocator:** Where is upside relative to opportunity cost?
- **Future self:** What option preserves or expands later choices?
- **Risk officer:** What can create irreversible downside?

Do not impersonate real people or fabricate what a named mentor would say. Use generic lenses unless the user supplies a person's actual prior advice.

## Workflow

1. State the decision, options, deadline, and non-negotiables.
2. Separate known facts, estimates, emotions, and unknowns.
3. Give each selected seat a specific objective and information set.
4. Each seat must provide:
   - strongest case;
   - biggest risk;
   - one missing fact that could change its view.
5. Identify genuine conflicts between seats.
6. Weight arguments by evidence and reversibility, not rhetorical confidence.
7. Prefer experiments when the uncertainty is cheaply reducible.
8. Produce one recommendation, one fallback, and one trigger that would cause reconsideration.

## Output

- Decision frame
- Board perspectives
- Key conflicts
- Evidence-weighted synthesis
- Recommendation
- Reconsideration trigger

Do not end with “it depends” when the available information supports a ranked choice.