s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis

Name: s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Categorises a decision by reversibility and applies the appropriate level of process rigour. Triggers: 'is this reversible', 'how much should I think about this', 'one-way door', 'two-way door', 'decision type', 'how committed is this'.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Decision Reversibility Analysis
2
3	Most people apply the same amount of thinking to every decision. This is wrong in both
4	directions: it produces analysis paralysis on easy reversible choices, and recklessness on
5	decisions that cannot be undone. The right question before deciding is not "what should
6	I choose?" — it is "how much should I invest in choosing?"
7
8	---
9
10	## Your Process
11
12	Step 1: State the Decision
13	Write the decision clearly. Include what is actually being committed to — not the
14	framing, the underlying commitment.
15
16	Framing check: Confirm the decision and its underlying commitment before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual decision being assessed and what would be locked in if made — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
17	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the decision and its underlying commitment]. 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 decision than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
23
24	Step 2: Assess Reversal Cost
25	If this decision turns out to be wrong, how expensive is it to undo? Consider: financial
26	cost, time cost, relationship or trust cost, technical debt introduced, market position
27	lost, and optionality foreclosed. Be concrete — not "expensive" but "six months of
28	re-architecture and two broken partnerships."
29
30	Step 3: Classify — Type 1 or Type 2
31	- Type 1 (one-way door): reversing is very costly or practically impossible. Wrong
32	here means significant, durable damage.
33	- Type 2 (two-way door): can be walked back at low cost if wrong. A review point or
34	small experiment can reveal the error before it compounds.
35
36	Step 4: Apply the Appropriate Process
37	- Type 1: slow down. Consult broadly. Surface dissent. Apply full analytical rigour.
38	Set explicit criteria for what "good" looks like before committing.
39	- Type 2: decide quickly. Set a review point. Move. Do not let this consume the time
40	budget of a Type 1 decision.
41
42	Step 5: Flag Misclassification Risk
43	Some decisions feel reversible but aren't. Network effects, sunk cost psychology,
44	technical lock-in, and relationship damage can make nominal two-way doors practically
45	one-way. Identify these explicitly.
46
47	---
48
49	## Human Check-in
50
51	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:
52
53	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
54	- Header: "Scope"
55	- Options:
56	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
57	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
58	- Reversibility verdict only — Is this reversible or not, and what that means for how much deliberation it deserves
59	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
60
61	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
62
63	## Output Format
64
65	Decision: [Statement — including the underlying commitment]
66
67	Reversal cost:
68	> [Concrete statement of what undoing this actually costs — time / money /
69	> relationships / technical / optionality]
70
71	Classification: Type 1 (one-way door) / Type 2 (two-way door)
72
73	Recommended process level:
74
75	\| Type \| Process \|
76	\|------\|---------\|
77	\| Type 1 \| Slow down — broad consultation, explicit success criteria, full rigour \|
78	\| Type 2 \| Decide quickly — set review point, move, learn \|
79
80	Misclassification risk:
81	> [Reasons this might be harder to reverse than it appears — or easier]
82
83	Recommendation:
84	> [Classification + what to do next based on it]
85
86	---
87
88	## Notes
89
90	The most expensive error is treating a Type 1 decision as Type 2 — deciding quickly on
91	something that cannot be undone. But the second-most expensive error is treating Type 2
92	decisions as Type 1, because the opportunity cost of delay is real and cumulative.
93
94	---
95
96	## What's Next
97
98	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
99
100	- Question: "Reversibility assessed. What's next?"
101	- Header: "Next"
102	- Options:
103	- `/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis` — If it's a one-way door, stress-test it thoroughly
104	- `/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting` — Weight decision criteria differently given reversibility level
105	- `/s4h-resource-allocation-analysis` — Calibrate resource investment to match reversibility
106	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Decision Reversibility Analysis
2
3	Most people apply the same amount of thinking to every decision. This is wrong in both
4	directions: it produces analysis paralysis on easy reversible choices, and recklessness on
5	decisions that cannot be undone. The right question before deciding is not "what should
6	I choose?" — it is "how much should I invest in choosing?"
7
8	---
9
10	## Your Process
11
12	Step 1: State the Decision
13	Write the decision clearly. Include what is actually being committed to — not the
14	framing, the underlying commitment.
15
16	Framing check: Confirm the decision and its underlying commitment before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual decision being assessed and what would be locked in if made — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
17	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the decision and its underlying commitment]. 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 decision than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
23
24	Step 2: Assess Reversal Cost
25	If this decision turns out to be wrong, how expensive is it to undo? Consider: financial
26	cost, time cost, relationship or trust cost, technical debt introduced, market position
27	lost, and optionality foreclosed. Be concrete — not "expensive" but "six months of
28	re-architecture and two broken partnerships."
29
30	Step 3: Classify — Type 1 or Type 2
31	- Type 1 (one-way door): reversing is very costly or practically impossible. Wrong
32	here means significant, durable damage.
33	- Type 2 (two-way door): can be walked back at low cost if wrong. A review point or
34	small experiment can reveal the error before it compounds.
35
36	Step 4: Apply the Appropriate Process
37	- Type 1: slow down. Consult broadly. Surface dissent. Apply full analytical rigour.
38	Set explicit criteria for what "good" looks like before committing.
39	- Type 2: decide quickly. Set a review point. Move. Do not let this consume the time
40	budget of a Type 1 decision.
41
42	Step 5: Flag Misclassification Risk
43	Some decisions feel reversible but aren't. Network effects, sunk cost psychology,
44	technical lock-in, and relationship damage can make nominal two-way doors practically
45	one-way. Identify these explicitly.
46
47	---
48
49	## Human Check-in
50
51	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:
52
53	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
54	- Header: "Scope"
55	- Options:
56	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
57	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
58	- Reversibility verdict only — Is this reversible or not, and what that means for how much deliberation it deserves
59	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
60
61	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
62
63	## Output Format
64
65	Decision: [Statement — including the underlying commitment]
66
67	Reversal cost:
68	> [Concrete statement of what undoing this actually costs — time / money /
69	> relationships / technical / optionality]
70
71	Classification: Type 1 (one-way door) / Type 2 (two-way door)
72
73	Recommended process level:
74
75	\| Type \| Process \|
76	\|------\|---------\|
77	\| Type 1 \| Slow down — broad consultation, explicit success criteria, full rigour \|
78	\| Type 2 \| Decide quickly — set review point, move, learn \|
79
80	Misclassification risk:
81	> [Reasons this might be harder to reverse than it appears — or easier]
82
83	Recommendation:
84	> [Classification + what to do next based on it]
85
86	---
87
88	## Notes
89
90	The most expensive error is treating a Type 1 decision as Type 2 — deciding quickly on
91	something that cannot be undone. But the second-most expensive error is treating Type 2
92	decisions as Type 1, because the opportunity cost of delay is real and cumulative.
93
94	---
95
96	## What's Next
97
98	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
99
100	- Question: "Reversibility assessed. What's next?"
101	- Header: "Next"
102	- Options:
103	- `/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis` — If it's a one-way door, stress-test it thoroughly
104	- `/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting` — Weight decision criteria differently given reversibility level
105	- `/s4h-resource-allocation-analysis` — Calibrate resource investment to match reversibility
106	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type