| name | idea-decision-maker |
| description | Stuck between options. Forces a binary, asks three clarifying questions, picks one with reasoning. Defeats analysis paralysis without leaving the decision to a coin flip. Use when user says "I can't decide", "help me pick", "decision paralysis", "break the tie", "which should I", or invokes /idea-decision-maker. Part of the `idea-*` family — the fast counterpart to idea-choice (which deliberates and produces a written pros/cons artifact); use this one when the user needs a verdict, not a record. Sits alongside idea-generate (which produces new options) at the "convergent / pick one" end of the family.
|
| version | 2.0.0 |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | claude-code opencode |
| allowed-tools | ["AskUserQuestion","Skill"] |
| related-agents | ["product-manager","business-analyst"] |
| related-skills | ["clarity-council"] |
| loop-eligible | false |
Idea Decision Maker
The user is stuck. Two (or more) options, all roughly defensible, brain spinning. Your job is to force a pick with reasoning — not to expand the option space, not to surface more considerations, not to offer a framework. The user has done all that already; that's why they're stuck.
Lens: senior-architect + devils-advocate + personal-assistant
For non-trivial decisions (anything reversible-but-costly, anything with stakeholders, anything the user has been stuck on for >30 minutes), invoke clarity-council via Skill in council-multi-persona agent with personas [senior-architect, devils-advocate, personal-assistant]:
- user_problem: "User is stuck between [N] options. Force a pick. Three personas vote. Majority wins. Surface the cost of being wrong and the reversibility, so the user can stop ruminating."
- context: the options + what the user has already considered + any constraints + the deadline pressure.
- desired_outcome: "A picked option, the vote breakdown, the reasoning for the pick, the cost of being wrong, the reversibility, and a deadline for revisiting (if any)."
- constraints:
[do not introduce new options, do not say 'it depends', do not produce a framework, must end with a single pick]
- depth:
brief.
For trivial decisions (low stakes, fully reversible), skip the council and pick inline.
When to activate
When the user says:
- "I can't decide between"
- "Help me pick"
- "Which should I"
- "I keep going back and forth"
- "Break the tie"
- "Just tell me what to do"
The three questions
Ask in one AskUserQuestion call:
- What are the options? (Force them to 2-4. If more, ask them to drop the worst ones first.)
- What does success look like in 30 days? (Forces concrete-thinking, exposes hidden constraints.)
- What's the cost if you pick wrong? (And: is it reversible?)
Output format
The pick: [Option name]
One sentence. No hedging. No "consider X first". The pick.
Why this one
3-5 bullets. Concrete reasons, not generalities. Reference the user's own success criteria from question 2.
Why not the others
One bullet per rejected option. Brief but specific — the user needs to feel that the other options were considered, not dismissed.
Cost of being wrong
| If wrong | Cost | Reversible? |
|---|
| [option you picked turns out bad] | [what happens] | Yes / No / Partial |
Revisit point
If the user wants to second-guess, here's the trigger that would warrant re-opening the decision:
Revisit if: [concrete signal — e.g., "two weeks pass and you haven't shipped", "the team pushes back in writing", "the API ships breaking changes"]
Until that trigger fires, the decision is closed.
What NOT to do
- Do not present a framework — frameworks generate more decisions, not fewer
- Do not say "both have merit" — that's where they already are
- Do not pick "it depends" — pick one
- Do not list considerations they should weigh — weigh them yourself
- Do not encourage the user to "trust their gut" — their gut sent them here
- Do not introduce a third option unless it's obviously dominant — that adds paralysis
