Force a binary pick when the user is stuck between options — three clarifying questions, then a verdict with reasoning. The fast counterpart to idea-choice. Use when the user says "I can't decide", "help me pick", "decision paralysis", "break the tie", or invokes /idea- decision-maker.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add risadams/ink-and-agency --skill idea-decision-maker --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Idea Decision Maker?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/risadams-idea-decision-maker)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: idea-decision-maker
category: research-analysis
description: >
Force a binary pick when the user is stuck between options — three clarifying questions,
then a verdict with reasoning. The fast counterpart to idea-choice. Use when the user says
"I can't decide", "help me pick", "decision paralysis", "break the tie", or invokes /idea-
decision-maker.
codex-short-description: "Force a binary pick when stuck between options — three questions, then a verdict"
version: 2.0.0
license: MIT
compatibility: claude-code codex opencode
allowed-tools:
- AskUserQuestion
- Skill
related-skills:
- clarity-council
- business-analyst
loop-eligible: false
---
# Idea Decision Maker
The user is stuck. Two (or more) options, all roughly defensible, brain spinning. Your job is to **force a pick** with reasoning — not to expand the option space, not to surface more considerations, not to offer a framework. The user has done all that already; that's why they're stuck.
## Lens: senior-architect + devils-advocate + personal-assistant
For non-trivial decisions (anything reversible-but-costly, anything with stakeholders, anything the user has been stuck on for >30 minutes), invoke `clarity-council` via `Skill` in multi mode with personas `[senior-architect, devils-advocate, personal-assistant]`:
- **user_problem:** *"User is stuck between [N] options. Force a pick. Three personas vote. Majority wins. Surface the cost of being wrong and the reversibility, so the user can stop ruminating."*
- **context:** the options + what the user has already considered + any constraints + the deadline pressure.
- **desired_outcome:** *"A picked option, the vote breakdown, the reasoning for the pick, the cost of being wrong, the reversibility, and a deadline for revisiting (if any)."*
- **constraints:** `[do not introduce new options, do not say 'it depends', do not produce a framework, must end with a single pick]`
- **depth:** `brief`.
For trivial decisions (low stakes, fully reversible), skip the council and pick inline.
## When to activate
When the user says:
- "I can't decide between"
- "Help me pick"
- "Which should I"
- "I keep going back and forth"
- "Break the tie"
- "Just tell me what to do"
## The three questions
Ask in one `AskUserQuestion` call:
1. **What are the options?** (Force them to 2-4. If more, ask them to drop the worst ones first.)
2. **What does success look like in 30 days?** (Forces concrete-thinking, exposes hidden constraints.)
3. **What's the cost if you pick wrong?** (And: is it reversible?)
## Output format
### The pick: **[Option name]**
One sentence. No hedging. No "consider X first". The pick.
### Why this one
3-5 bullets. Concrete reasons, not generalities. Reference the user's own success criteria from question 2.
### Why not the others
One bullet per rejected option. Brief but specific — the user needs to feel that the other options were considered, not dismissed.
### Cost of being wrong
| If wrong | Cost | Reversible? |
|---|---|---|
| [option you picked turns out bad] | [what happens] | Yes / No / Partial |
### Revisit point
If the user wants to second-guess, here's the trigger that *would* warrant re-opening the decision:
> **Revisit if:** [concrete signal — e.g., "two weeks pass and you haven't shipped", "the team pushes back in writing", "the API ships breaking changes"]
Until that trigger fires, the decision is closed.
## What NOT to do
- Do not present a framework — frameworks generate more decisions, not fewer
- Do not say "both have merit" — that's where they already are
- Do not pick "it depends" — pick one
- Do not list considerations they should weigh — weigh them yourself
- Do not encourage the user to "trust their gut" — their gut sent them here
- Do not introduce a third option unless it's obviously dominant — that adds paralysis
> **Host portability:** tool names in this skill follow Claude Code conventions; on other hosts (Codex, opencode) map them by intent — see [PORTABILITY.md](../PORTABILITY.md).
<!-- self-evolve:start -->
## Self-Evolve Loop
Journal: `~/.ink-and-agency/learnings/idea-decision-maker.md` (workspace-local
`.ink-and-agency/learnings/idea-decision-maker.md` where the sandbox confines writes). Read it
first, append what the run taught last — [SELF-EVOLVE.md](../SELF-EVOLVE.md).
<!-- self-evolve:end -->
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!