| name | boc - Better Option Check |
| description | Prevent user from settling on suboptimal option by systematically checking if better options exist that match their preferences. System surfaces what user may not have considered. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Better Option Check
Input: $ARGUMENTS (user's current choice and preference profile)
Interpretations
Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:
Interpretation 1 — Option expansion: The user has settled on a choice and wants to discover options they haven't considered — the goal is to surface what they don't know exists before committing.
Interpretation 2 — Choice validation: The user has a preferred option but feels uncertain, and wants confirmation that no clearly better alternative exists — they're looking for permission to proceed or a reason to reconsider.
Interpretation 3 — Preference clarification: The user is choosing between options but their real problem is unclear preferences — the better-option check will reveal what they actually value by examining what their current choice implies.
If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with expanding your option space, validating your current choice, or clarifying what you actually value — which fits?"
If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.
Purpose
Users often choose the first viable option, not the best option. This procedure systematically checks if better options exist.
Principle: Before committing, verify no better option is being missed. Surface what the user doesn't know exists.
Step 1: Identify Current Choice
USER'S CURRENT CHOICE: [what they're considering]
Evidence of commitment:
├── Stated directly: [quote if available]
├── Implied by behavior: [what suggests this choice]
├── Assumed by default: [if no explicit choice, what's implied]
└── Commitment level: EXPLORING / LEANING / DECIDED
Why this choice:
├── [reason 1]
├── [reason 2]
└── [unknown - not stated]
Step 2: Extract Preferences from Choice
What does choosing this option reveal about preferences?
| Inferred Preference | How Inferred | Strength |
|---|
| [preference 1] | [current choice has this property] | STRONG/WEAK |
| [preference 2] | [current choice has this property] | STRONG/WEAK |
| [preference 3] | [what's sacrificed suggests anti-preference] | STRONG/WEAK |
Step 3: Generate Full Option Space
List ALL options in the category, not just obvious ones:
OPTION SPACE FOR: [category]
Commonly Known Options:
├── [option 1] - [brief description]
├── [option 2] - [brief description]
└── [option 3] - [brief description]
Less Known Options:
├── [option 4] - [why overlooked]
├── [option 5] - [why overlooked]
└── [option 6] - [why overlooked]
Hybrid Options:
├── [combination 1] - [elements combined]
├── [combination 2] - [elements combined]
└── [combination 3] - [elements combined]
Non-Obvious Options:
├── [option 7] - [why not obvious]
├── [option 8] - [why not obvious]
└── [option 9] - [why not obvious]
Options User Likely Doesn't Know About:
├── [option 10] - [why likely unknown]
├── [option 11] - [why likely unknown]
└── [option 12] - [why likely unknown]
TOTAL: [count] options generated
Minimum: Generate 20+ options before comparison.
Step 4: Score All Options Against Preferences
| Option | Pref 1 | Pref 2 | Pref 3 | Pref 4 | Pref 5 | Total | Rank |
|---|
| Current choice | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | [N]/5 | [R] |
| [option 2] | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | [N]/5 | [R] |
| [option 3] | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | ✓/✗/~ | [N]/5 | [R] |
Key:
- ✓ = matches preference
- ✗ = conflicts with preference
- ~ = neutral/unknown
Step 5: Identify Better Options
OPTIONS THAT RANK HIGHER THAN CURRENT CHOICE:
1. [option name]
Score: [X]/5 vs current [Y]/5
Better because: [specific advantages]
Why user might not have considered: [reason]
2. [option name]
Score: [X]/5 vs current [Y]/5
Better because: [specific advantages]
Why user might not have considered: [reason]
3. [option name]
Score: [X]/5 vs current [Y]/5
Better because: [specific advantages]
Why user might not have considered: [reason]
Step 6: Analyze Why User Chose Suboptimally
If better options exist, why is user choosing current option?
| Reason for Suboptimal Choice | Evidence | Addressable? |
|---|
| Didn't know better option exists | [not mentioned] | YES - inform |
| Assumed constraint that doesn't exist | [stated belief] | YES - verify |
| Used wrong criteria | [stated reasons] | YES - reframe |
| Satisficing (first viable) | [stopped searching] | YES - show better |
| Emotional attachment | [signs of attachment] | MAYBE - understand why |
| Sunk cost | [prior investment] | MAYBE - reframe |
| Social pressure | [others' expectations] | MAYBE - surface values |
| Status quo bias | [defaulting to familiar] | YES - show concrete benefit |
| Actually optimal (we're wrong) | [hidden info] | NO - update our understanding |
Step 7: Generate "Before You Commit" Summary
## BEFORE COMMITTING TO: [current choice]
### Options That Match Your Preferences Better
1. **[Better Option 1]**
- Matches: [preferences it satisfies]
- Why you might not have considered it: [reason]
- Compared to your current choice: [specific comparison]
- Worth exploring if: [condition]
2. **[Better Option 2]**
- Matches: [preferences it satisfies]
- Why you might not have considered it: [reason]
- Compared to your current choice: [specific comparison]
- Worth exploring if: [condition]
### What Your Current Choice Sacrifices
- [preference X] - your choice doesn't provide this
- [preference Y] - your choice works against this
### Recommendation
[PROCEED / EXPLORE_ALTERNATIVES / STOP_AND_RECONSIDER]
Reason: [why this recommendation]
Step 8: Present Without Overwhelming
If many better options exist, prioritize:
| Priority | Option | Why Prioritized |
|---|
| 1 | [option] | Highest preference match + most overlooked |
| 2 | [option] | Second highest match |
| 3 | [option] | Interesting alternative frame |
Maximum 3 alternatives to present - more causes decision paralysis.
Output Format
## BETTER OPTION CHECK
### Current Choice
[what user is considering]
Commitment level: [EXPLORING/LEANING/DECIDED]
Preference match score: [X]/[total]
### Full Option Space
[count] options identified
[list grouped by category]
### Options That Rank Higher
1. [option]: Score [X]/[total]
2. [option]: Score [X]/[total]
3. [option]: Score [X]/[total]
### Why User May Be Settling
[analysis of suboptimal choice reasons]
### Before You Commit
[3 prioritized alternatives to consider]
### Recommendation
[PROCEED / EXPLORE / RECONSIDER]
[reason]
Execution Checklist
Next Procedure
If EXPLORE_ALTERNATIVES:
→ INVOKE: /cta on the better options
If RECONSIDER:
→ INVOKE: /ve to clarify what user actually wants
Execute now: Check if better options exist for the user's current choice.
