Mohit Aggarwal Decision Helper
Pro/con lists fail because they treat every point as equal and stop before deciding. This does the honest version: it pulls out the criteria that actually matter to you, weights them, scores each option, and then commits to a recommendation — while naming the one unknown that, if resolved, would change the answer. It helps you decide, not just organise the agonising.
What This Skill Produces
- The criteria, weighted — what actually matters here, and how much (not a flat list)
- The scored comparison — each option against each criterion
- A recommendation — a clear lean, with how confident and why
- The tiebreaker question — the one unknown that would flip it, so you know what to go find out
- The gut-check — a prompt to notice if the "winner" makes you uneasy (that's data too)
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The options — what you're choosing between (2+ concrete choices)
- What matters to you — money, growth, stress, location, values… (or the skill will propose criteria and ask you to weight them)
- The stakes & reversibility — one-way door or easily undone? (changes how much rigor is worth)
- Any hard constraints — deal-breakers that filter options before scoring
Framework: Decide, Don't Just List
- Criteria before options. Name what a good outcome depends on before looking at the choices, so scoring isn't rationalised.
- Weight honestly. If money is 3× more important than commute, say so — equal weights are a hidden lie.
- Score, then total. Each option × each criterion; the math surfaces where a "close call" actually isn't.
- Commit to a lean. State the recommendation and its confidence — "narrowly A" is more useful than "it depends."
- Name the tiebreaker. The one fact that would change the answer tells you what to research next.
- Respect the gut. If the math says A but your stomach sinks, that mismatch is a criterion you haven't named yet.
Output Format
Deciding: [option A] vs [option B] · reversibility: [one-way / easy]
Weighted criteria
| Criterion | Weight | A | B |
|---|---|---|---|
| … | high/med/low | score | score |
Recommendation
Lean: [option] — confidence [high/medium/low]. Why: …
Tiebreaker: the one thing to find out — [question]. Gut-check: does the winner sit right? If not, what's the unnamed criterion?
Quality Checks
- Criteria were drawn from what the user cares about, then weighted (not equal by default)
- Each option is scored against each criterion
- A clear recommendation is given, with confidence — not "it depends"
- The single decision-flipping unknown is named
- Reversibility is factored into how much certainty is worth chasing
- The gut-check prompt is included
Anti-Patterns
- A flat pro/con list with no weights and no decision.
- False precision — inventing exact scores for things you can't know; use ranges and label assumptions.
- Refusing to recommend — "both have merits" is the one thing the user came to avoid.
- Ignoring reversibility — agonising over an easily-undone choice, or rushing a one-way door.
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Help me decide between two job offers."
- "Which laptop should I buy — here are three?"
- "Should I move cities for this role? Make it a weighted decision."
- "I'm torn between two apartments — help me choose."
- "Make a real pro/con list and actually tell me what to pick."