القائمة
Compare options and recommend a direction. Use for decision requests like "choose", "which option", "tradeoffs", "recommend", "should we", and option selection with criteria, risks, and reversibility.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | choose |
| description | Compare options and recommend a direction. Use for decision requests like "choose", "which option", "tradeoffs", "recommend", "should we", and option selection with criteria, risks, and reversibility. |
| license | MIT |
| tags | ["decision","recommendation","tradeoffs"] |
| metadata | {"author":"Oleg Shulyakov","version":"1.1.0","source":"github.com/olegshulyakov/agent.md","catalog":"utility","category":"project-management"} |
Choose a direction by comparing viable options against explicit criteria.
Scenario: Criteria are needed for comparison Given options are being compared Then compare them against goals, constraints, risk, cost, speed, reversibility, maintenance, user impact, or user-provided criteria
Scenario: Evidence supports a recommendation Given evidence is sufficient to prefer one option Then choose one option And state when the evidence is not sufficient
Scenario: Output drifts into classification Given grouping options is useful Then use grouping only as support for a decision And keep the primary output focused on choosing
Scenario: No criteria are provided Given the user has not provided decision criteria Then infer practical criteria And label them as assumptions
Scenario: No options are provided Given the user has not provided options Then define plausible options before comparing them
Scenario: Evidence is insufficient Given the available evidence cannot support a firm recommendation Then provide a conditional recommendation And name the smallest information needed to firm it up
Scenario: Output passes quality check Given a recommendation has been produced Then the selected option wins on the criteria that matter most And subjective preferences and uncertain assumptions are surfaced And meaningful risks, mitigations, and reversibility are included
Review any artifact and output results in a Retrospective board format — what is well, what is bad, what should be improved, what to change. Use when the user says "review", "critique", "evaluate", "what's wrong with", "compare", or passes a skill, rule, doc, spec, code, diff, or pull request for assessment. Works on a single artifact, an artifact against a reference, a diff or PR, or two artifacts side by side.
Organize material into meaningful groups. Use for classification requests like "categorize", "group", "cluster", "sort", "taxonomy", "organize these", and grouping by criteria, priority, dependency, similarity, or abstraction level.
Explain any knowledge topic simply and accurately. Use for explanation requests like "explain X", "why/how/what is X?", concepts, science, definitions, code, design, architecture, and walkthroughs.
Investigate local repository, document, and attached-artifact context. Use for local investigation requests like "investigate", "find where", "understand this repo", "trace", and local-context research; do not use for web search.
Manage active work across people, agents, tasks, dependencies, blockers, and handoffs. Use for coordination requests like "manage this work", "lead this", "assign", "delegate", "track blockers", "status", "handoff", and multi-workstream execution.
Sequence work before execution. Use for planning requests like "break this down", "roadmap", "approach", "milestones", "how should we proceed", migration planning, rollout planning, and scoped next steps.
