Activate when: user says 'help me choose between two options with different risks', 'I need to map out what could happen if we go with X', 'we have a sequential decision — first we do A then depending on results we do B', 'what is the expected value of this investment given uncertain demand'. Do NOT activate when: the decision is a one-shot choice with no sequential stages (use simple EV instead); probabilities cannot be estimated even roughly and uncertainty is too deep to quantify. More: de...
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add deciqAI/knowledge-skills --skill decision-tree --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Decision Tree?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/deciqai-decision-tree)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: decision-tree
description: "Activate when: user says 'help me choose between two options with different risks', 'I need to map out what could happen if we go with X', 'we have a sequential decision — first we do A then depending on results we do B', 'what is the expected value of this investment given uncertain demand'. Do NOT activate when: the decision is a one-shot choice with no sequential stages (use simple EV instead); probabilities cannot be estimated even roughly and uncertainty is too deep to quantify. More: deciqai.com/s/decision-tree"
---
# Decision Tree
## Overview
A **decision tree** maps a multi-stage decision: decision nodes (squares) for choices you control, chance nodes (circles) for outcomes you don't, probabilities on every branch, payoffs at the leaves — then rollback right-to-left to get expected value at the root. First systematized by John F. Magee (HBR, 1964); formalized by Howard Raiffa (1968). Its biggest value: converting "I feel we should expand" into "what probability do you assign to high demand?" — making every assumption explicit and contestable.
Composes with [`expected-value-and-kelly`](../expected-value-and-kelly/SKILL.md) (EV scaffold + bet sizing), [`probabilistic-thinking`](../probabilistic-thinking/SKILL.md) (calibration per node), [`inversion`](../inversion/SKILL.md) (rollback = working outcomes backward), [`mece`](../mece/SKILL.md) (branches must be MECE so probabilities sum to 1.0).
## When to Use
- Decision has sequential stages (decide → learn → decide again)
- Outcomes uncertain; probabilities can be estimated (even roughly)
- Payoffs quantifiable (NPV, revenue, cost, lives saved)
- Multiple stakeholders need a shared visual model to align on assumptions
- Sizing a big irreversible bet under AI uncertainty — build vs. buy vs. wait on AI capex, a fab investment, or committing while AI adoption / AI valuations are unproven
**Not when:** one-shot choice with no stages; probabilities unestimable; payoffs purely qualitative; branch set too large (use scenario planning instead).
## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)
- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete multi-stage decision → run The Process directly.
- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → guide step by step.
In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.
1. **One-line:** a decision tree converts "I feel" into "what probability do you assign?" — making assumptions explicit so they can be argued about.
2. **Check fit.** Sequential stages? Uncertain outcomes? Quantifiable payoffs? If yes to all three, a tree applies.
3. **Elicit their real case.** What's the initial choice? What uncertain outcomes follow? What payoffs result?
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
4. **Run The Process one step at a time** with their input — draw structure, assign probabilities, assign payoffs, roll back.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
5. **Close** by naming the insight: the threshold at which the recommendation flips, and whether to gather more data.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
## The Process
**Step 1 — Root:** Define the decision (options, timeline, decision-maker). Draw a square; each option is a branch.
**Step 2 — Chance nodes:** For each branch, identify uncertain events → draw circles. Branches at each circle must be MECE; probabilities must sum to 1.0.
**Step 3 — Probabilities:** Assign a number (0.0–1.0) + documented basis to every branch. Reject "50/50" without justification.
**Step 4 — Payoffs:** Assign consistent-unit payoffs (NPV, revenue, etc.) to every terminal leaf.
**Step 5 — Rollback:** Right to left — EV at each circle = Σ(p × value). At each square, keep highest EV branch; mark losers //.
**Step 6 — Sensitivity + stop-rule:** Find the probability threshold where the optimal choice switches. Compute EVPI = EV(perfect info) − EV(best decision now). If EVPI < cost of data: decide now. If EVPI > cost: gather data first. Stop refining when the leading option's EV advantage exceeds the value of further analysis.
## Output Template
```
Decision Tree: <topic>
Options: A / B | Timeline:
Tree: [node-by-node description]
Probabilities: Node | Branch | p | Basis
Payoffs: Path | Value | Unit
Rollback: Option A EV= / Option B EV= / Optimal=
Sensitivity: flips when p([key branch]) > [threshold] | EVPI=
Recommendation: [option] — holds if [condition]; flips if [condition]
```
*→ Method in Action: [Magee 1964 — Chemical Plant Investment (HBR)](examples/magee-1964-chemical-plant-investment-hbr.md) · [Eisenhower's D-Day Weather Decision](examples/eisenhower-1944-d-day-weather-decision.md)*
*→ 2026 lens: [A Chipmaker's Leading-Edge Fab Investment Under AI Uncertainty (2024–2026)](examples/chipmaker-leading-edge-fab-investment-2024-2026.md)*
## Pack: Decision Tree by Domain
| Domain | Root Decision | Key Uncertainty | Payoff | Watch For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital investment | Large vs. small plant | Demand scenarios | NPV | Overconfident demand p |
| R&D portfolio | Fund vs. kill | Technical success; adoption | Revenue × p | Ignoring base-rate failure |
| Litigation | Settle vs. litigate | Win/lose; damages | Expected settlement | Anchoring on best case |
| Product launch | Now vs. delay | Market reception; competitor | Revenue per scenario | Missing competitor-first branch |
| M&A | Acquire vs. pass | Integration; synergy | Post-acquisition EV | Paying for performance peak |
## Applying It Well
- Draw before calculating — structure surfaces hidden assumptions
- Assign probabilities before revealing your preferred option
- Run sensitivity before concluding; find the switchover threshold and EVPI
- Audit missing branches explicitly: "what did we leave out?"
*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*
## Common Rationalizations
**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**
| Rationalization (Fake Move) | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "This is strategic — we don't need numbers." | Without numbers the tree is just a picture. Force strategic disagreements to become numerical ones. |
| [D] "We can't estimate probabilities." | Even rough estimates beat implicit zero/one assumptions. Every un-numbered branch already has an implicit probability. |
| [D] "The tree chose A — we're done." | Holds only at assigned probabilities. Sensitivity analysis is mandatory before concluding. |
| [D] "We enumerated all branches." | Trees are always simplifications. Ask explicitly: what branches are missing? |
| [D] "It's 50/50 — we just don't know." | 50/50 is a claim requiring justification. What base rate supports it? |
| [D] "My gut says B even though the tree says A." | Gut = implicit tree with different probabilities. Find which number your gut is using and put it in. |
| [D] "The tree gave a recommendation — it must be right." | GIGO: garbage probabilities produce garbage recommendations. Calibrate inputs first. |
| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |
## Red Flags
- Probabilities verbal only — no numbers written | Chance-node probabilities don't sum to 1.0
- No sensitivity analysis performed | Terminal payoffs in mixed units across branches
- Probabilities assigned post-hoc to justify a pre-decided conclusion | No missing-branch audit
## Verification
- [ ] Root decision defined; all options enumerated
- [ ] All chance nodes MECE; probabilities sum to 1.0 at each node
- [ ] Every probability has documented basis
- [ ] All terminal payoffs in same unit and discount rate
- [ ] Rollback verified numerically at every node
- [ ] Sensitivity complete — switchover threshold identified
- [ ] EVPI calculated; data-gathering decision made
- [ ] Missing-branch audit performed; recommendation states conditions it holds and flips
---
*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — 237 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. **See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/decision-tree** · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.*
*Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/decision-tree.json*
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!