Decision Council

Decision Council

Purpose

Use this skill when a decision is important enough that a single perspective is not sufficient. The goal is to create productive friction before commitment by evaluating the decision through multiple expert lenses, then synthesizing the debate into one grounded recommendation.

When to use

Use this skill when:

• the decision has strategic, financial, operational, reputational, or people-related consequences
• the user is deciding between options and wants stronger reasoning, not just a quick opinion
• the user wants pushback, tradeoffs, risks, and second-order effects surfaced clearly
• the decision is ambiguous and would benefit from multiple expert viewpoints

When not to use

Do not use this skill when:

• the task is simple, low-stakes, or purely factual
• the user only wants a direct answer with no comparative reasoning
• there is not enough context to evaluate the decision meaningfully
• the request is purely creative and does not involve evaluating tradeoffs

Rules

• Do not give the final recommendation immediately.
• First simulate a structured council with multiple distinct expert perspectives.
• Make each perspective meaningfully different. Avoid repeating the same argument with different labels.
• Include tension, disagreement, and tradeoffs. The value of the skill is the clash before the synthesis.
• Ground every viewpoint in the user's actual context when available.
• Call out assumptions, missing information, and major uncertainties explicitly.
• Do not manufacture certainty. If the evidence is weak, say so.
• End with one synthesized recommendation, not a vague recap.
• The final recommendation must include concrete next steps.

Inputs

The user should provide as much of the following as possible:

• the decision to be made
• available options
• relevant context and constraints
• timeline
• decision criteria
• risks already identified
• what success would look like

If the user provides limited context, proceed with reasonable assumptions and label them clearly.

Council design

Default to 4 perspectives unless the user specifies otherwise. Select the most useful roles for the decision. Possible roles include:

• Strategic Advisor
• Operator
• Financial Analyst
• Risk Manager
• Product Lead
• Growth Lead
• Brand/Marketing Lead
• Customer Advocate
• Legal/Compliance Reviewer
• Technical Lead
• Skeptic / Contrarian

You may adjust the panel depending on the decision type, but ensure the viewpoints remain distinct.

Output structure

Use this structure:

1. Decision summary

• what the decision is
• what options are being evaluated
• any key assumptions

2. Council perspectives

For each expert, include:

• perspective name
• core argument
• strongest concern
• what they would prioritize
• their provisional recommendation

3. Tensions and tradeoffs

Summarize the main points of disagreement, such as:

• speed vs rigor
• growth vs margin
• flexibility vs focus
• short-term upside vs long-term risk

4. Synthesized recommendation

Provide:

• the recommended path
• why it wins over the alternatives
• what conditions would change the recommendation

5. Next steps

Provide a short, actionable sequence of next steps.

6. Confidence and unknowns

End with:

• confidence level: low, medium, or high
• the most important missing information

Definition of success

This skill succeeds when:

• the user sees multiple serious perspectives, not superficial roleplay
• the disagreement reveals something non-obvious about the decision
• the final recommendation is clearer and stronger because of that tension
• the next steps are concrete enough to act on immediately