# Decision Maker

> |

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-qingxuantang-lennys-to-sop-and-skills-decision-maker`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [qingxuantang](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/qingxuantang)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [qingxuantang](https://github.com/qingxuantang)
- **Source:** https://github.com/qingxuantang/Lennys-to-sop-and-skills/tree/master/skills/decision-maker

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-qingxuantang-lennys-to-sop-and-skills-decision-maker
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Decision-Maker Skill

Help users make better decisions using proven frameworks from Lenny's Podcast experts.

## When This Skill Activates
- "Help me decide..."
- "Should we do A or B?"
- "How do we make this decision?"
- "We need alignment on..."
- "Should we continue this project?"
- "When should we quit?"
- "Run a pre-mortem"
- "I can't choose between..."
- "What's the opportunity cost?"

## Framework Selection Guide

| Situation | Use This Framework |
|-----------|-------------------|
| Big strategic decision with stakeholders | SPADE |
| Need group input without groupthink | Nominal Group |
| Deciding whether to continue/quit | Kill Criteria |
| Assessing risks before launch | Pre-Mortem |
| Comparing prioritization options | Opportunity Cost |

---

## Framework 1: SPADE (Big Decisions)

**Source**: Gokul Rajaram - Lenny's Podcast
**Key Insight**: Most decision delays come from unclear ownership and insufficient exploration of alternatives.

### When to Use
- Major product decisions
- Strategic choices with significant tradeoffs
- Cross-functional decisions requiring alignment
- High-stakes, irreversible decisions
- When decision ownership is unclear

### Procedure

**S - Setting** (Define the context)
```
Template: "We need to decide [specific decision] by [date]
because [why it matters now]. Constraints: [list them]."
```

**P - People** (Assign roles)
- **Responsible**: ONE decision-maker (not a committee)
- **Approvers**: Must approve (keep minimal)
- **Consulted**: Provide input
- **Informed**: Told after decision

**A - Alternatives** (Generate options)
- Create at least 3 alternatives (avoids false binary)
- Always include "do nothing" as an option
- Each must be viable with clear tradeoffs

**D - Decide** (Make the call)
1. Gather input from Consulted parties
2. Evaluate alternatives against criteria
3. Decision-maker makes the call
4. Get approval from Approvers
5. Document decision and rationale

**E - Explain** (Communicate)
- What was decided
- Why this alternative was chosen
- What alternatives were considered
- What happens next

### Pitfalls to Avoid
- Vague decision framing
- Multiple decision-makers (pick ONE)
- Only two alternatives (generate more)
- Relitigating after decision is made

---

## Framework 2: Nominal Group Method (Group Decisions)

**Source**: Annie Duke - Lenny's Podcast
**Key Insight**: The only thing that should happen in a meeting is discussion—discovery and decisions should happen independently.

### When to Use
- Brainstorming sessions
- Forecasting and estimation
- Any group decision-making process
- When you need diverse input without groupthink

### Procedure

**Step 1: Discover Independently (Before Meeting)**
- Send question to all participants
- Each person responds privately (no reply-all)
- Collect: their answer + brief rationale

**Step 2: Aggregate and Share**
- Compile all responses anonymously or attributed
- Highlight the spread of opinions
- Share before the meeting

**Step 3: Discuss in Meeting (Focus on Disagreements)**
- 80% of time on differences, not agreements
- Facilitator reflects back without opinion
- No interrupting, no "you're wrong"
- Ask clarifying questions only

**Step 4: Decide Independently (After Meeting)**
- Single decision-maker decides, OR
- Independent vote (can't see others' votes)
- Don't force "alignment"—it doesn't exist

**Step 5: Use "Nevertheless"**
```
"I've heard everyone's input. Nevertheless, we're going
to do X. Here's why..."
```

### Pitfalls to Avoid
- Discovering opinions in the meeting (anchoring bias)
- Letting loudest voice dominate
- Seeking "alignment" (accept disagreement)
- Senior person speaking first

---

## Framework 3: Kill Criteria (When to Quit)

**Source**: Annie Duke - Lenny's Podcast
**Key Insight**: Pre-mortems only work if paired with pre-committed actions you'll take when signals appear.

### When to Use
- Starting new projects or initiatives
- Making investment decisions
- Pursuing sales deals
- Launching experiments
- Any decision where you might need to quit later

### Procedure

**Step 1: Run Pre-Mortem**
```
"Imagine it's [timeframe] from now and this has failed
completely. What were the early warning signals?"
```

**Step 2: Categorize Signals**
| Category | Response |
|----------|----------|
| Red | Fatal—kill immediately |
| Yellow | Serious—requires intervention |
| Orange | Concerning—investigate |

**Step 3: Define Actions for Each Signal**
For each signal, specify:
- What action to take (kill, pivot, investigate, escalate)
- Who owns the action
- Timeline to act

**Step 4: Commit Before Launch**
- Review kill criteria with team
- Get explicit agreement to act when signals appear
- Document the commitments

**Step 5: Monitor and Execute**
- Check for signals regularly
- When signal appears: execute pre-committed action
- No debate—time for debate was when setting criteria

### Example Kill Criteria
```
Signal: Customer only discusses price, won't demo
Category: Red
Action: Kill the deal immediately
Owner: Account Executive
Reasoning: They're using us to beat up a competitor on price
```

### Pitfalls to Avoid
- Setting criteria but not committing to act
- Renegotiating when signal appears ("but it's different now")
- Vague signals that can't be observed
- No action owner assigned

---

## Framework 4: Pre-Mortem Technique (Risk Assessment)

**Source**: Shreyas Doshi - Lenny's Podcast
**Key Insight**: Imagining failure before it happens surfaces risks that optimism blinds us to.

### When to Use
- Before launching projects
- Before major initiatives
- When stakes are high
- When team seems overconfident

### Procedure

**Step 1: Set the Scene**
```
"Imagine it's 6 months from now. This project has failed
completely. What went wrong?"
```

**Step 2: Individual Brainstorm (5-10 min)**
- Each person writes 3-5 failure scenarios independently
- Include specific, concrete reasons
- Don't share yet

**Step 3: Aggregate and Categorize**
- Collect all failure scenarios
- Group similar ones
- Identify themes

**Step 4: Prioritize Top Risks**
- Vote on most likely/impactful
- Focus on top 3-5 risks

**Step 5: Create Mitigation Plans**
For each top risk:
- Prevention: How to reduce likelihood
- Detection: How to spot it early
- Response: What to do if it happens

**Step 6: Set Kill Criteria (Optional)**
- Convert key risks into kill criteria
- Pre-commit to actions

### Pitfalls to Avoid
- Not making it independent (groupthink)
- Stopping at identification (need mitigation)
- Not following up on mitigations
- Using it to justify not launching (that's not the point)

---

## Framework 5: Opportunity Cost Mindset (Prioritization)

**Source**: Shreyas Doshi - Lenny's Podcast
**Key Insight**: The true cost of doing something is everything else you can't do—not just the resources spent.

### When to Use
- Prioritization debates
- Resource allocation decisions
- "Should we do this?" discussions
- When ROI analysis feels incomplete

### Procedure

**Step 1: Identify the Proposal**
- What's being proposed?
- What resources does it require?
- What's the expected outcome?

**Step 2: List Alternatives (What You're NOT Doing)**
- What else could these resources accomplish?
- What's the best alternative use?
- Include "do nothing" and "do less"

**Step 3: Compare Against Best Alternative**
Don't ask: "Is this worth doing?"
Ask: "Is this MORE worth doing than the best alternative?"

**Step 4: Factor in Hidden Costs**
- Context switching costs
- Maintenance burden
- Complexity added
- Options foreclosed

**Step 5: Factor in Hidden Benefits**
- Learning and optionality value
- Platform/foundation value
- Strategic positioning

**Step 6: Make Explicit Tradeoff**
```
"We're choosing to do X instead of Y because [reason].
We accept that Y won't happen."
```

### The ROI Trap
- ROI asks: "Does this return more than it costs?"
- Problem: Everything with positive ROI looks good
- Opportunity cost asks: "Is this the BEST use of resources?"

### Pitfalls to Avoid
- Only looking at ROI (ignores alternatives)
- Not quantifying what you're giving up
- Treating decisions as independent (they're not)
- Ignoring option value

---

## How to Apply This Skill

1. **Listen for the decision type**
   - Big strategic → SPADE
   - Group input needed → Nominal Group
   - Continue/quit → Kill Criteria
   - Risk assessment → Pre-Mortem
   - Prioritization → Opportunity Cost

2. **Walk through the selected framework** step-by-step with the user

3. **Highlight relevant pitfalls** based on their situation

4. **Offer to combine frameworks** when appropriate (e.g., Pre-Mortem → Kill Criteria)

## Related Skills
- `/strategy-advisor` - For strategic direction questions
- `/goal-setter` - For goal-setting and prioritization
- `/leadership-coach` - For team decision dynamics

## Full SOPs (Deep Dives)
- [SPADE Framework](../../../sops/decision-making/spade-decision-framework-001.md)
- [Nominal Group](../../../sops/decision-making/nominal-group-decision-making-001.md)
- [Kill Criteria](../../../sops/decision-making/kill-criteria-framework-001.md)
- [Conviction-Based Persistence](../../../sops/decision-making/conviction-based-persistence-framework-001.md)
- [Pre-Mortem](../../../sops/product-management/prioritization/pre-mortem-technique-001.md)
- [Opportunity Cost](../../../sops/product-management/prioritization/opportunity-cost-mindset-001.md)
- [Pivot vs Persevere](../../../sops/product-management/discovery/pivot-vs-persevere-decision-framework-001.md)
- [Pivot Decision Framework](../../../sops/strategy/pivot-decision-framework-001.md)
- [Fear/Anger Decision](../../../sops/leadership/fear-anger-decision-framework-001.md)

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [qingxuantang](https://github.com/qingxuantang)
- **Source:** [qingxuantang/Lennys-to-sop-and-skills](https://github.com/qingxuantang/Lennys-to-sop-and-skills)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-qingxuantang-lennys-to-sop-and-skills-decision-maker
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/qingxuantang
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.