Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with SNC-sized depth, said-vs-assumed write-back, an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review. Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session.
Pro scans all 5 files and shows the line behind each finding
Scanned 10/3/2026
npx -y skills add HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill common-decision-discipline --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Common Decision Discipline?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hoangnguyen0403-common-decision-discipline)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: common-decision-discipline
description: Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with SNC-sized depth, said-vs-assumed write-back, an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review. Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session.
guardrail: true
metadata:
triggers:
files: []
keywords:
- decision brief
- delivery contract
- compare approaches
- evidence ledger
- approval state
- option trade-offs
- shape a direction
---
# Decision Discipline
## **Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)**
Trustworthy decisions are sized to the work, grounded in evidence, and approved on the record.
## 1. Size The Work
| SNC tier | Depth | Artifact |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `tier=low` (0-2) | Quick | Contract in chat, no file; `approval` in the Handoff Payload |
| `tier=medium` (3-4) | Standard | Core brief file |
| `tier=high` (5-6) | Deep | Full brief; decompose multi-subsystem ideas first; optional `specialist-architecture-guard` review |
- Score with `common-task-complexity-routing`; label as inference until scouted. The tier only rises once work starts.
- A symptom without a root cause routes to `dev-fix`; never compare fixes for an undiagnosed bug.
## 2. Shared Understanding
- Draft first, then write back two lists: **You said** and **I assumed**. Allow one correction round.
- Skip the write-back when outcome, constraints, non-goals, and acceptance criteria are already stated; confirm in one line.
- Reuse an accepted contract; never reopen it.
## 3. Evidence Ledger
- Tag every feasibility, AS-IS, or current-behavior claim: `confirmed(<path>)`, `assumed`, or `unknown`.
- Read the smallest useful set of code, tests, docs, and existing `docs/brd|prd|srs` before calling an option feasible.
- Resolve what evidence can settle; label only what stays unknowable. Format: `references/evidence-ledger.md`.
## 4. Questions
- Ask only when the answer changes the result, safety boundary, or public contract.
- Max 3 per round, each with a recommended default and 2-3 options.
- Never re-ask a settled fact. Never ask the operator to re-authorize approved work.
- For `operator_profile=business`, every question is answerable by "go with your suggestion".
## 5. Options
- 0-3 options, only when a real choice exists. A single viable path is stated as the path, not padded.
- Each option card names its load-bearing assumption, first failure condition, worst plausible case, and cost to abandon (`references/option-card.md`).
- Recommend the smallest option that satisfies the contract. When a critical assumption is unresolved, recommend the option cheapest to abandon.
- Cut unrequested scope; keep all requested scope.
## 6. Approval State
- `approval: pending | approved(<who>, <YYYY-MM-DD>) | assumed-autonomous`.
- Interactive: end with "Reply ok or corrections". An ok approves only the artifact presented.
- Autonomous or channel mode with no confirmation channel: set `assumed-autonomous` and continue. Readiness warns, and blocks only at `tier=high`.
## 7. Self-Review Before Handoff
- Placeholders: TBD, TODO, empty sections.
- Contradictions between sections.
- Scope: one plan, or needs splitting.
- Ambiguity: a requirement with two readings; pick one and state it.
## Red Flags
Stop when thinking: "too simple to need a brief", "they said implement, so skip intake", "it's a bug, pick a fix", "list three options to look thorough", "ask again to be safe", "they approved the idea, so the plan is approved". Each is a rationalization, not a reason.
## Anti-Patterns
- **No unlabeled claims**: every AS-IS or feasibility statement carries an evidence tag.
- **No padded options**: never invent alternatives to reach three.
- **No silent approval**: a brief without `approval` is incomplete.
- **No reopened decisions**: settled facts are carried forward, not re-asked.
## References
- [Contract Templates](references/contract-template.md)
- [Evidence Ledger](references/evidence-ledger.md)
- [Option Card](references/option-card.md)
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!