$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-decision-option-mappingEnsures all real options are visible before choosing — countering the false dichotomy that limits consideration to the first two options that came to mind. Triggers: 'what are all the options', 'false dichotomy check', 'expand the option set', 'what else could we do', 'options in
| 1 | # Decision Option Mapping |
| 2 | |
| 3 | The options people choose between are usually not all the options that exist — they are |
| 4 | the first options that were named, which then anchored the frame. This skill expands the |
| 5 | option set before analysis begins, using four specific moves that reliably surface options |
| 6 | the natural framing excludes. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | --- |
| 9 | |
| 10 | ## Your Process |
| 11 | |
| 12 | **Step 1: State the Decision and Currently-Considered Options** |
| 13 | Write the decision as currently framed and list all options currently on the table. Don't |
| 14 | filter yet — include the options even if they seem weak. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | **Framing check:** Confirm the specific decision and its intended outcome before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual decision being mapped and the goal it serves — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`: |
| 17 | - **Question:** "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the decision and its intended outcome]. Is that right?" |
| 18 | - **Header:** "Framing" |
| 19 | - **Options:** |
| 20 | - **Yes — proceed** — framing is correct |
| 21 | - **Adjust** — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue |
| 22 | - **Reframe** — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding |
| 23 | |
| 24 | **Step 2: Challenge the Frame** |
| 25 | Is this decision actually forced? Are you choosing between options A and B because those |
| 26 | are the real options, or because those are the options that were generated first? What |
| 27 | would have to be true for there to be no decision to make? |
| 28 | |
| 29 | **Step 3: Four Expansion Moves** |
| 30 | |
| 31 | **(a) Expand**: Generate 3 more ways to achieve the underlying goal. Not variations on |
| 32 | existing options — genuinely different approaches. Ask: if none of the current options |
| 33 | existed, what would we try? |
| 34 | |
| 35 | **(b) Defer**: Is "decide later" viable? At what cost? Deferral is a real option — it |
| 36 | has costs and benefits like any other. When can this be decided without foreclosing |
| 37 | anything important? |
| 38 | |
| 39 | **(c) Hybrid**: Can elements of multiple options be combined? Hybrids often emerge when |
| 40 | options are treated as mutually exclusive when they aren't. |
| 41 | |
| 42 | **(d) Reframe**: If the goal were slightly different, what options appear? Sometimes |
| 43 | the option set is limited by the goal framing, not the constraints. |
| 44 | |
| 45 | **Step 4: Add Viable New Options** |
| 46 | **Before narrowing:** Show the complete generated set to the user first. Use `AskUserQuestion`: |
| 47 | - **Question:** "I've identified [N] options across the four expansion moves. Before I select the genuinely viable ones, are there any you'd flag as especially important, or any I've missed?" |
| 48 | - **Header:** "Prioritise" |
| 49 | - **Options:** |
| 50 | - **Proceed with your selection** — the set looks right |
| 51 | - **Flag one** — user will name a specific option to include |
| 52 | - **Add a missing one** — user will describe it |
| 53 | |
| 54 | From the four moves, add the options that are genuinely viable. Discard the ones that |
| 55 | don't survive basic scrutiny — not to narrow prematurely, but to keep the set useful. |
| 56 | |
| 57 | **Step 5: Recommend Next Step** |
| 58 | With the expanded set, recommend which analytical tool to apply: decision-criteria- |
| 59 | weighting (multiple comparable options), decision-reversibility-analysis (one option being |
| 60 | considered), or decision-premortem-analysis (a direction already being leaned toward). |
| 61 | |
| 62 | --- |
| 63 | |
| 64 | ## Human Check-in |
| 65 | |
| 66 | Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask: |
| 67 | |
| 68 | - **Question:** "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?" |
| 69 | - **Header:** "Scope" |
| 70 | - **Options:** |
| 71 | - **Full analysis** — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout |
| 72 | - **Key findings only** — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail |
| 73 | - **Hidden options only** — Surface the options not currently being considered |
| 74 | - **Reframe** — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing |
| 75 | |
| 76 | Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis. |
| 77 | |
| 78 | ## Output Format |
| 79 | |
| 80 | **Decision as framed:** [Statement] |
| 81 | **Currently-considered options:** [List] |
| 82 | |
| 83 | **Frame challenge:** |
| 84 | > [Is this decision forced? What assumptions are built into the current option set?] |
| 85 | |
| 86 | **Expanded option set:** |
| 87 | |
| 88 | | Option | Source (original / expand / defer / hybrid / reframe) | Viable? | Reason | |
| 89 | |--------|------------------------------------------------------|---------|--------| |
| 90 | | | | | | |
| 91 | | | | | | |
| 92 | |
| 93 | **Options to add to the decision:** |
| 94 | > [Bulleted list with one-line rationale each] |
| 95 | |
| 96 | **Recommended next step:** |
| 97 | > [Which analytical skill to apply, and to which expanded option set] |
| 98 | |
| 99 | --- |
| 100 | |
| 101 | ## Notes |
| 102 | |
| 103 | The most commonly missed option is deferral. "Decide now" is itself a choice with costs — |
| 104 | urgency |