Judge a past decision by its PROCESS, not its outcome — because good decisions lose and bad decisions win, and teams that can't tell the difference learn the wrong lessons. Use when reviewing a big call after the fact (a bet that failed, a pass that haunts, a hire, a pivot) and the room is about to conclude 'it failed so it was wrong.' Produces a process-forensics report: what was knowable then, the quality grade of the decision as-made, the luck accounting, and the ONE process change worth k...
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill decision-autopsy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Decision Autopsy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mohitagw15856-decision-autopsy-ca0c5bde)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: decision-autopsy
description: "Judge a past decision by its PROCESS, not its outcome — because good decisions lose and bad decisions win, and teams that can't tell the difference learn the wrong lessons. Use when reviewing a big call after the fact (a bet that failed, a pass that haunts, a hire, a pivot) and the room is about to conclude 'it failed so it was wrong.' Produces a process-forensics report: what was knowable then, the quality grade of the decision as-made, the luck accounting, and the ONE process change worth keeping."
---
# Decision Autopsy
Outcome bias is the strongest bias in organisational memory: the bet that failed becomes "obviously reckless," the coin-flip that landed becomes "visionary." The autopsy separates the two questions that always get merged: *was it a good decision?* and *did it get a good outcome?* — because only the first is under anyone's control next time.
## Required Inputs
- **The decision** — what was decided, when, by whom, and what the live alternatives were.
- **What was knowable at the time** — the information, constraints, and time pressure as of the decision date. Be strict: things learned afterward go in a separate pile, and the autopsy will police the boundary.
- **The outcome** — what actually happened, so the luck accounting has something to account.
## The Forensic Frames
- **The information test:** given only what was knowable then, what would a calibrated outsider have chosen? (The autopsy answers this *before* re-examining the outcome, to keep hindsight out of the grade.)
- **The process test:** were alternatives really generated? Was disconfirming evidence sought or only tolerated? Was the reversibility of the choice priced in? Was a kill-criterion set?
- **The luck accounting:** decompose the outcome into decision quality vs. variance — what portion of the result would replay differently if the world rolled again?
- **The lesson filter:** the only lessons worth keeping are process lessons ("we never priced reversibility") — outcome lessons ("don't bet on X") overfit to one roll of the dice.
## Output Format
1. **The two verdicts, separated** — Decision: 🟢 sound / 🟡 flawed / 🔴 negligent *as made*. Outcome: good / bad / mixed. State them side by side; the whole point is that they can disagree.
2. **The knowability ledger** — table: fact | knowable then? | actually known? | changed the call? Hindsight contamination gets flagged explicitly ("this entered the story after the fact").
3. **The luck accounting** — one honest paragraph: what fraction of this outcome was variance, with the reasoning shown.
4. **The one process change** — a single, named, repeatable change to how decisions like this get made ("every >$100k bet gets a written kill-criterion before commitment"). One. Teams adopt one; they file lists.
5. **The replay line** — "facing the same information again, the right call would be ___" — the sentence that inoculates the team against both regret and false confidence.
## Quality Checks
- [ ] The decision grade was assigned from the knowability ledger BEFORE outcome discussion, and the report's structure shows it
- [ ] At least one hindsight contamination is caught and named — reviews without any are usually not looking
- [ ] The luck paragraph commits to a rough proportion, with reasoning — "some luck was involved" is evasion
- [ ] The process change is executable next quarter and testable ("did we do it?"), not a value statement
- [ ] If the decision was 🟢 and the outcome bad, the report says the uncomfortable sentence plainly: "do it again"
## Anti-Patterns
- [ ] Do not let the outcome leak into the grade — a bad result may not appear as evidence of a bad decision anywhere in the report
- [ ] Do not run an autopsy as a trial — no verdicts on people; the unit of analysis is the process that any competent person was embedded in
- [ ] Do not conclude "we were unlucky" without the ledger to earn it — luck is the residual after process is examined, never the headline
- [ ] Do not extract more than one lesson — the second-best lesson dilutes the best one
- [ ] Do not autopsy decisions younger than their outcome — if the result isn't actually in yet, this is a premortem's job
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!