Decision Forensics Skill
Most decisions are never stated — they precipitate out of a thread and everyone leaves with a different memory of them. This skill is the forensic pass: what was actually decided (if anything), who committed to what, and which disagreements got papered over rather than resolved. (To write a fresh decision going forward, use architecture-decision-record; this skill reconstructs one from the wreckage.)
What This Skill Produces
- The decision, stated cleanly — one sentence, even though nobody ever said it in one sentence — or the finding "no decision was reached"
- The commitments table — who agreed to do what, with the quote that binds them
- Reconstructed assumptions — what everyone silently took as true, labeled as reconstructed
- Dismissed options and papered-over questions — what was set aside, and what was never actually resolved
- A confidence note — how solid this reconstruction is and where it's guessing
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The thread — Slack export, email chain, or meeting notes/transcript (paste; timestamps and names preserved if possible)
- The cast (optional) — who's who: roles and decision authority; else infer from context and label
- What prompted the forensics (optional) — a dispute, an audit, onboarding someone — shapes emphasis, never conclusions
Framework: The Forensic Protocol
- Anchor — find the moments where direction changed hands: an approval word ("ship it", "fine, let's"), an unobjected proposal followed by action talk, or authority going silent after a suggestion (silence + subsequent action = the most common decision form).
- Attribute — every claim about a person gets a verbatim quote or close paraphrase with the original wording nearby. No quote, no attribution.
- Excavate assumptions — what must everyone have believed for the exchange to make sense? Label each
[reconstructed] — these were never said.
- Separate resolved from papered-over — a question answered vs a question abandoned when someone changed the subject. The second list is usually the valuable one.
- Grade the reconstruction — HIGH (explicit approval by named authority) · MEDIUM (unobjected proposal + consistent action) · LOW (inferred from fragments). State it.
Output Format
Decision Record (reconstructed): [one-sentence decision]
Source: [thread, date range] · Reconstruction confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — [why]
The Decision
[One sentence. Or: "No decision was reached. The thread ends with X unresolved; subsequent action, if any, happened without recorded agreement."]
Commitments
| Who |
Committed to |
The binding quote |
By when |
Assumptions (all [reconstructed])
Options Dismissed
| Option |
Dismissed by/when |
Stated reason |
Actually resolved? |
Papered Over
[Questions raised and abandoned — each with who raised it and where the thread swerved.]
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
1---2name: decision-forensics3description: Reconstruct the decision actually made in a messy Slack, email, or meeting thread into a proper decision record — commitments named, silent assumptions surfaced, non-decisions called out. Use when asked what did we actually decide, turn this thread into a decision record, who committed to what, or reconstruct this discussion. Produces a decision record with quoted evidence, a commitments table, reconstructed assumptions, dismissed options, and a confidence note on the reconstruction itself.4---5
6# Decision Forensics Skill
7
8Most decisions are never stated — they precipitate out of a thread and everyone leaves with a different memory of them. This skill is the forensic pass: what was actually decided (if anything), who committed to what, and which disagreements got papered over rather than resolved. (To *write* a fresh decision going forward, use `architecture-decision-record`; this skill reconstructs one from the wreckage.)
9
10## What This Skill Produces
11
12- **The decision, stated cleanly** — one sentence, even though nobody ever said it in one sentence — or the finding "no decision was reached"
13- **The commitments table** — who agreed to do what, with the quote that binds them
14- **Reconstructed assumptions** — what everyone silently took as true, labeled as reconstructed
15- **Dismissed options and papered-over questions** — what was set aside, and what was never actually resolved
16- **A confidence note** — how solid this reconstruction is and where it's guessing
17
18## Required Inputs
19
20Ask for these if not provided:
21- **The thread** — Slack export, email chain, or meeting notes/transcript (paste; timestamps and names preserved if possible)
22- **The cast** (optional) — who's who: roles and decision authority; else infer from context and label
23- **What prompted the forensics** (optional) — a dispute, an audit, onboarding someone — shapes emphasis, never conclusions
24
25## Framework: The Forensic Protocol
26
271. **Anchor** — find the moments where direction changed hands: an approval word ("ship it", "fine, let's"), an unobjected proposal followed by action talk, or authority going silent after a suggestion (silence + subsequent action = the most common decision form).
282. **Attribute** — every claim about a person gets a verbatim quote or close paraphrase *with the original wording nearby*. No quote, no attribution.
293. **Excavate assumptions** — what must everyone have believed for the exchange to make sense? Label each `[reconstructed]` — these were never said.
304. **Separate resolved from papered-over** — a question answered vs a question abandoned when someone changed the subject. The second list is usually the valuable one.
315. **Grade the reconstruction** — HIGH (explicit approval by named authority) · MEDIUM (unobjected proposal + consistent action) · LOW (inferred from fragments). State it.
32
33## Output Format
34
35---
36
37# Decision Record (reconstructed): [one-sentence decision]
38**Source:** [thread, date range] · **Reconstruction confidence:** HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — [why]
39
40## The Decision
41[One sentence. Or: "**No decision was reached.** The thread ends with X unresolved; subsequent action, if any, happened without recorded agreement."]
42
43## Commitments
44| Who | Committed to | The binding quote | By when |
45|---|---|---|---|
46
47## Assumptions (all `[reconstructed]`)
48- …
49
50## Options Dismissed
51| Option | Dismissed by/when | Stated reason | Actually resolved? |
52|---|---|---|---|
53
54## Papered Over
55[Questions raised and abandoned — each with who raised it and where the thread swerved.]
56
57---
58
59## Quality Checks
60
61- [ ] Every attribution carries a quote or near-paraphrase with original wording nearby
62- [ ] Assumptions are labeled `[reconstructed]` — never presented as things people said
63- [ ] The confidence grade matches the evidence type (explicit / unobjected / inferred)
64- [ ] Papered-over questions are listed separately from resolved ones
65- [ ] If no decision was reached, the record says so plainly
66
67## Anti-Patterns
68
69- [ ] Do not attribute positions beyond what the text supports — quote it or drop it
70- [ ] Do not resolve ambiguity by inventing agreement — surfacing the ambiguity IS the deliverable
71- [ ] Do not clean a non-decision into a decision; "no decision was reached" is a valid, common, and useful finding
72- [ ] Do not editorialize about who was right — forensics reconstructs; it doesn't adjudicate
73- [ ] Do not omit the confidence note — a reconstruction that hides its own uncertainty is fabrication with footnotes
Mohit Aggarwal