Omh Decide

---
name: "omh-decide"
description: "[omh] Team or business decision between options: tradeoffs, a recommendation, and a decision note you can act on."
license: MIT
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, strategy]
    category: strategy
    phase: brief
    role: operator
    quality_tier: decision-gated
---

# Strategy Brief

This is an OMH `strategy-brief` workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

## Why This Exists

`strategy-brief` exists so a team decision ends as a recommendation whose options are priced in one unit with their lag (and, when hard to reverse, a proposed ADR), not a discussion where each option is argued in different terms.

## Do Not Use When

- A technical choice one cheap experiment can settle; use `omh-decision-prototype`. A technical choice inside a plan being written; use `omh-plan`. A technical choice the user wants attacked; use `omh-adversarial-consensus`. Use this skill for the decision note and ADR once the options are known.
- The strategic question is whether an early idea's customer problem and segment are real, and no validated discovery receipt exists yet; use `omh-product-discovery-validation`.
- The question is how to run a hiring process — scorecards, interview loops, candidate comparison — rather than whether to hire at all; use `omh-people-ops`.
- The user wants Jev's typed probabilities for a yes/no, pick-one, or scored question over supplied text rather than tradeoffs and a recommendation.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: strategy-brief: decide whether our onboarding should prioritize solo founders or enterprise buyers.
- Expected behavior: Frame options, tradeoffs, assumptions, rejected paths, and the decision evidence needed.
- Why: The request is strategy-shaped and should not jump directly into implementation.

Bad example:

- Prompt: strategy-brief: treat casual chat or unaccepted work as if this workflow already produced verified results.
- Expected behavior: Ask a clarification question or route to a narrower workflow instead of forcing `strategy-brief`.
- Why: The request lacks the required inputs or would overclaim work that Hermes did not observe.

## Completion Checklist

- The decision, options, tradeoffs, assumptions, and rejected alternatives are named.
- Observed signals are separated from strategic inference.
- Accepted decisions and implementation follow-ups are not conflated.

## Recovery Notes

- If demand and capacity cannot be compared in one unit or hiring ramp lag is unknown, retain the stated constraints and options, mark the recommendation tentative, and hand back the missing capacity and timing inputs.
- If a drafted decision record lacks write approval, retain the options, tradeoffs, and proposed decision note, mark persistence not_observed, and hand back the draft for approval without writing docs/adr/.



## When to Use

Use when Hermes should turn goals and evidence into options, tradeoffs, recommendations, and a decision-ready brief.

    Strong routing signals: `strategy-brief`, `strategy brief`, `strategy memo`, `product strategy`, `strategic options`, `decision note`, `leadership strategy`, `next strategy`, `capacity planning`, `hire or outsource`, `outsource or hire`, `cut scope`, `headcount plan`, `demand versus capacity`, `다음 전략`, `전략 정리`, `전략 메모`, `전략 옵션`, `의사결정`, `리더십 회의`

## Catalog Metadata

Category: `strategy`
Phase: `brief`
Quality tier: `decision-gated`
Reasoning demand: `standard`

Quality bar:

- Name the decision, constraints, options, tradeoffs, and rejected alternatives.
- Tie recommendations to observed evidence or mark them as assumptions.
- Keep coding handoff disabled until strategy is accepted and code work is explicit.
- When the decision is a resourcing one — hire, outsource, or cut scope — quantify demand and capacity against each other in one unit before comparing options, and price each option with the lag before it lands; a gap that exists this quarter is not closed by a hire that ramps next quarter. The worked example is `omh-decide/references/capacity-planning.md`.
- Ask whether the decision deserves a durable record - hard to reverse, surprising without its context, and carrying a real trade-off; all three or no record, a decision note in chat is enough.
- When a record is warranted, draft it per `omh-decide/references/decision-records.md` - the `docs/adr/` convention with Context, Drivers, Considered Options, Decision, Consequences with mitigations, and Related - and stop for the user's approval before any file is written.
- Never edit an accepted record: status moves Proposed to Accepted to Deprecated or Superseded, supersession is a new record pointing back at the old one, and a Rejected record stays in the decision log for later readers; `omh-decision-recall` covers memory candidates a person rejected, not these records.

Required inputs:

- goal
- known evidence
- constraints
- decision owner

Expected outputs:

- options
- tradeoffs
- recommended direction
- decision note

Artifact expectations:

- strategy brief or decision note when a wrapper captures it

Safety rules:

- Do not treat a draft recommendation as an accepted decision.
- Keep unresolved assumptions visible.
- Separate strategy from implementation planning unless the user asks for execution.
- A drafted decision record stays a proposal: nothing is written under `docs/adr/` until the user approves the write.

## Runtime Evidence

Use the current host's own tools and subagent/task mechanism when available;
otherwise run the same lanes sequentially or name the unavailable capability.
A prepared plan, handoff, checklist, or skill installation is not execution,
review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence. Record actual tool results, or
`not_observed` / `not_available`, in the record; never invent dispatch or host
accounting.
Treat supplied context as advisory, not proof of hidden memory reads or writes.
State scope, constraints, verification, and the stop condition before work.
Reply in the user's own words and the host's own voice: the host's persona owns
reply language, tone, speech level, and sentence endings, progress updates
included (where it sets no language, use the one the user wrote in), and OMH
shapes structure and content only; OMH's record terms
(surface, lane, wrapper, handoff, evidence boundary, not_observed) stay in
records and tool calls, never in the sentence the user reads unless they ask
about one; and when a real unresolved user decision or a useful briefing discussion
remains, offer one specific, content-linked question. Completed work needs no question;
omit unrelated non-action footers and generic offers to continue.
Supporting paths are relative to this skill directory; sibling skill paths are
relative to its parent. Resolve them from the host-provided skill base directory
(`{baseDir}` on hosts that provide it), never a hardcoded install location.
A named workflow not installed here is unavailable, not permission to emulate
its host-specific capabilities. Verify through the real surface before done.