Skip to content
Back to skills

Strategic Options Evaluation

ASecurity

Compares strategic options, including \"do nothing\", on a fixed set of dimensions (impact, effort, risk, reversibility, resource fit), scored independently per option and plotted on at least two views rather than collapsed into one number. Use when a decision needs a legible trade-off comparison instead of the most persuasively argued option winning by default.

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 6, 2026
ai-agentsgorails

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 6, 2026

npx -y skills add Pilot2Service/AI-Business-Designer --skill strategic-options-evaluation --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Strategic Options Evaluation?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Strategic Options Evaluation
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/pilot2service-strategic-options-evaluation/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/pilot2service-strategic-options-evaluation)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: strategic-options-evaluation
description: "Compares strategic options, including \"do nothing\", on a fixed set of dimensions (impact, effort, risk, reversibility, resource fit), scored independently per option and plotted on at least two views rather than collapsed into one number. Use when a decision needs a legible trade-off comparison instead of the most persuasively argued option winning by default."
---

# Strategic Options Evaluation

## Purpose

Compares strategic options in a structured way — impact, effort, risk, and
resource fit — so a decision is made against a consistent set of criteria
instead of whichever option was argued for most persuasively.

## Anchored in research

- McKinsey — structured problem solving
- Liedtka (1998) — intelligent opportunism: staying alert to good options that
  emerge outside the original plan, and evaluating them with the same rigor
  as the options that were planned for.

## Method

1. **List the real options, including "do nothing."** An evaluation with only
   one live option isn't a comparison — make sure at least one genuine
   alternative, including the status quo, is on the table.
2. **Fix a small, consistent set of comparison dimensions before scoring any
   option** — typically impact, effort/cost, risk, reversibility, and
   resource/capability fit. Deciding the dimensions after seeing the options
   invites motivated reasoning toward a preferred one.
3. **Score each option on each dimension independently.** Resist collapsing
   straight to a single overall ranking before the dimension-level picture is
   visible — a lot of the useful information is in *where* options diverge,
   not just which one wins on average.
4. **Plot the options on at least two views** (e.g. impact vs. effort, and
   impact vs. risk) rather than relying on a single composite score — a
   single number hides trade-offs a decision-maker needs to see.
5. **Separate reversible from irreversible options explicitly.** A
   high-impact but reversible option (a pilot, a limited rollout) can
   reasonably beat a similarly-scored irreversible one, even at the same
   "impact" score — reversibility changes the real risk, not just the
   variance.
6. **Produce a decision-ready comparison, not a recommendation disguised as
   analysis** — the output should make the trade-offs legible enough that a
   different, reasonable person could look at the same table and pick
   differently for defensible reasons.

## What this skill does NOT do

- Doesn't make the final decision for you — it produces a structured draft to
  support a human decision.
- Doesn't confirm figures, market data, or competitor data from memory — it
  uses the inputs you provide, or marks an assumption clearly
  (`[assumption — verify]`).
- Doesn't make the final choice for you — it structures the options into
  decision-ready, comparable material.

## Refinement notes

Areas to keep deepening with real practice:

- your own rules of thumb and heuristics for this technique
- concrete templates (into [`../../references/`](../../references/))
- reference cases / your own examples
- what this skill deliberately does *not* do (guardrails, common mistakes) —
  add to the list above

This is an internal working note, not a claim about the skill's current
usability. Track depth privately via the `maturity` field in
`skills_index.json` (see
[`../../../meta/maturity_levels.md`](../../../meta/maturity_levels.md)).
**Don't add new fields to the frontmatter** — `name` and `description` are
the only ones allowed (see
[`../../../meta/frontmatter_schema.md`](../../../meta/frontmatter_schema.md)).

## Continue from here

- Once this step is done, move to [`../../../opportunity-recognition/skills/market-and-signal-scanning/SKILL.md`](../../../opportunity-recognition/skills/market-and-signal-scanning/SKILL.md)
- A ready-made skill chain for this situation: see [`../../../playbooks/`](../../../playbooks/)
- This pack's shared guardrails: [`../../CLAUDE.md`](../../CLAUDE.md)

## References

- [`../../references/`](../../references/) — the pack's shared background material
- [`../../CLAUDE.md`](../../CLAUDE.md) — the pack's shared guardrails

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.