# Decision Memo Builder > Builds a 1-page decision memo (context → options → recommendation → risks → ask) enforcing McKinsey memo DNA — brutal brevity, SCP storyline clarity, decision-forcing output, evidence density. Use when drafting a memo for a leadership decision, a scope cut, a buy/build/partner call, a roadmap slip, or any "should we X?" moment that needs a yes/no from a specific person by a specific date. - Skill: `tomevault-io/decision-memo-builder` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/decision-memo-builder` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/decision-memo-builder/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/decision-memo-builder --- # Decision Memo Builder A 1-page memo that forces a decision. Not a status update. Not a brief. Not a FYI. The reader walks away knowing exactly what they are being asked to approve, by when, and why. --- ## Memo DNA — four non-negotiables Every decision memo must pass all four. If the draft fails one, rewrite. Do not ship a memo that fails Memo DNA. 1. **Brutal brevity** — 1 page, ~400 words max. Every sentence earns its place or gets cut. 2. **Storyline clarity (SCP)** — Situation → Complication → Resolution flow. Reader never asks "so what?" 3. **Decision-forcing** — Last line is a yes/no ask with owner and date. Never "further analysis needed." 4. **Evidence density** — Every claim backed by a number, quote, or source. No adjectives doing load-bearing work. --- ## Structure ### Title (≤10 words) Name the **decision**, not the topic. - ✅ "Sunset legacy reporting engine by Q3" - ❌ "Reporting strategy update" ### Context (3–4 sentences) State of the world *before* the ask. Facts only. Baseline numbers. No history-of-the-universe framing. ### Complication (2–3 sentences) What changed, or what's at risk if we don't decide now. Include the number that makes this urgent. - ✅ "Usage down 15% QoQ; 3 enterprise deals ($1.2M) flagged the gap in Q1 QBRs." - ❌ "Usage has been declining and customers are concerned." ### Options (2–3 options, 1–2 lines each) Mutually exclusive. Each option gets: - **Name** - One-line description - The single most important trade-off (cost, time, or risk) Do not sneak a recommendation in here. ### Recommendation (1 short paragraph) State the chosen option and why it wins on the decision criteria that matter most. Cite the evidence that tips the call. ### Risks & Mitigations (≤3 bullets) The top 3 things that could go wrong, each paired with a 1-line mitigation. Not a risk inventory — the three the reader would actually ask about. ### The Ask (1 line) A specific yes/no request with an owner and a date. - ✅ "Approve sunset by EOD Friday; Sarah owns migration plan by 5/1." - ❌ "Let's discuss next steps." --- ## Process 1. **Interview before drafting.** Ask the user: - Who is the reader? (CEO, VP, peer) - What decision do they need to make? - What's the deadline? - What are the real 2–3 options, and which do you think wins? - What evidence do you have? (Numbers, quotes, benchmarks) 2. **Draft in Memo DNA order.** Title → Context → Complication → Options → Recommendation → Risks → Ask. 3. **Run the four tests.** For each section, confirm it passes Memo DNA. Flag any that fail. 4. **Cut 30%.** First drafts are always too long. Strip adjectives, hedging ("potentially," "may," "could possibly"), and throat-clearing. 5. **Stress-test the ask.** Can the reader answer yes or no from the memo alone? If not, sharpen. --- ## Worked Example 1: Tooling Migration **Title** Switch engineering + product from Jira to Linear by 5/30 **Context** ~60 engineers and PMs on Jira today. $48K/yr in licenses. 4 active projects, custom workflows, 6 years of history. Engineering NPS on tooling = 4/10 in the Q1 survey. **Complication** Jira admin role has been open 4 months; no single owner maintaining workflows. Two teams (Growth, Platform) ran Linear pilots in Q1 — 30% faster issue creation, 50% less "which field is required" confusion. Renewal is due 5/30 and auto-renews at +12%. **Options** 1. **Stay on Jira** — $54K next year, zero migration cost, continued tooling friction. 2. **Migrate to Linear** — $36K/yr, ~6 weeks of migration work, cleaner UX, loses some Jira-specific reports. 3. **Run Linear + Jira in parallel for 6 months** — hedged, doubled cost ($90K), splits team context. **Recommendation** Migrate to Linear. Saves $18K/yr, ends the 4-month admin vacancy, and two pilot teams already validate the productivity win (60 people × 1 hr/wk saved ≈ $300K/yr loaded). The "lost reports" risk is low — exec dashboards already live in Looker, not Jira. **Risks & Mitigations** - 6 years of Jira history → export to a read-only archive; no lift-and-shift. - Custom workflow loss → document the top 3 workflows, rebuild in Linear before cutover. - Team resistance → give Growth + Platform leads ownership of internal comms. **The Ask** Approve Linear migration by 5/30. Priya owns migration plan; Alex cancels Jira renewal. --- ## Worked Example 2: Scope Cut **Title** Cut AI-tagging from v2 launch — approve by EOD **Context** v2 is committed for 5/15. Current scope: 8 features, ~1,800 engineer-hours estimated. Team capacity = 1,400 hours remaining. **Complication** We're 400 hours over. AI-tagging alone = 350 hours and blocks 3 other teams' integrations if it slips. **Options** 1. **Ship all 8, slip 3 weeks** — breaks GTM commits to 4 design partners. 2. **Cut AI-tagging, ship 5/15** — scope fits, saves 350 hrs, feature defers 6 weeks. 3. **Cut 2 smaller features, keep AI-tagging** — fits scope but breaks onboarding funnel. **Recommendation** Cut AI-tagging. Launch date > this feature. AI-tagging ranked #6 in customer survey (n=42). Cutting the 2 smaller features would break a conversion funnel we validated last quarter (+18% activation). **Risks & Mitigations** - GTM already promised AI-tagging → update positioning memo this week. - Team morale dip → announce v2.1 date (7/1) alongside the cut. - Competitor parity → no competitor ships it today; 6-week delay = low risk. **The Ask** Approve cutting AI-tagging from v2 by EOD. Alex updates GTM narrative; Jordan re-plans v2.1. --- ## Anti-patterns - ❌ Bullet-point soup with no storyline - ❌ "We should consider..." — decision-averse hedging - ❌ Missing numbers — "significant impact," "major risk," "strong signal" - ❌ Recommendation leaked into the Options section - ❌ Ask that's just "discuss next steps" - ❌ > 1 page — if you need more, split into memo + appendix --- ## When to Use - Leadership decision requests (buy/build, hire, cut, pivot) - Roadmap calls (ship / slip / cut) - Scope trade-offs (cut X to save Y) - Strategic pivots - Any moment a peer or exec needs a yes/no from you ## When NOT to Use - FYI updates → use a status note - Brainstorms → use `issue-tree-builder` - Broader strategic narratives → use `scpr-framework` - Presentations → use `storyline-builder` - Post-review quality check → pair with `mckinsey-critic` --- > Source: [sruthir28/enterprise-ai-skills](https://github.com/sruthir28/enterprise-ai-skills) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).