| name | decision-matrix |
| description | Creates weighted decision matrices for business choices with criteria, scoring, and recommendation logic to remove emotion from decisions. |
| allowed-tools | Read Write Glob |
| metadata | {"author":"Salah-XD","version":"1.0"} |
Decision Matrix
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when you need to:
- Compare multiple business options using objective, weighted criteria
- Make a hiring, vendor, tool, or strategy decision with clear reasoning
- Remove emotional bias from a business choice by scoring options systematically
- Document decision rationale for stakeholders or future reference
DO NOT use this skill for simple yes/no decisions, personal life choices, or decisions where one option is already clearly superior. This is for complex, multi-criteria business decisions.
Core Principle
A DECISION MATRIX DOES NOT MAKE THE DECISION FOR YOU — IT MAKES YOUR THINKING VISIBLE SO YOU CAN SPOT WHERE INTUITION AND DATA AGREE OR CONFLICT.
Phase 1: Frame the Decision
Define the decision clearly before building the matrix.
Required Inputs
| Input | What to Ask | Default |
|---|
| Decision statement | "What specific decision are you making? State it as a question." | No default — must be provided |
| Options | "What are your 2-5 options?" | No default — minimum 2 required |
| Criteria | "What factors matter most in this decision? (cost, speed, quality, risk, etc.)" | Suggest 5-7 based on decision type |
| Stakeholders | "Who is affected by or needs to approve this decision?" | Solopreneur (self) |
| Timeline | "When does this decision need to be made?" | This week |
Decision Types and Suggested Criteria
| Decision Type | Suggested Criteria |
|---|
| Tool/Software | Cost, ease of use, features, integrations, scalability, support |
| Vendor/Partner | Price, quality, reliability, communication, experience, terms |
| Hire | Skills match, culture fit, availability, rate, portfolio quality |
| Strategy | Revenue impact, effort, risk, time to results, alignment with goals |
| Market/Product | Market size, competition, margin potential, execution difficulty |
GATE: Confirm the decision statement, options, and criteria before building the matrix.
Phase 2: Weight and Score
Build the matrix with weighted criteria and score each option.
Weighting Criteria
Assign weights that total 100% across all criteria:
## Criteria Weights
| Criteria | Weight | Rationale |
|----------|--------|-----------|
| Revenue impact | 30% | Directly tied to business goal |
| Implementation effort | 25% | Limited resources as solopreneur |
| Risk level | 20% | Cannot afford major setbacks |
| Time to results | 15% | Need wins within 90 days |
| Scalability | 10% | Important but not urgent |
| **Total** | **100%** | |
Scoring Options
Score each option 1-5 on every criterion with brief justification:
## Decision Matrix: [Decision Statement]
| Criteria | Weight | Option A | Score | Option B | Score | Option C | Score |
|----------|--------|----------|-------|----------|-------|----------|-------|
| Revenue impact | 30% | [rationale] | 4 | [rationale] | 3 | [rationale] | 5 |
| Effort | 25% | [rationale] | 3 | [rationale] | 5 | [rationale] | 2 |
| Risk | 20% | [rationale] | 4 | [rationale] | 4 | [rationale] | 3 |
| Time to results | 15% | [rationale] | 5 | [rationale] | 3 | [rationale] | 2 |
| Scalability | 10% | [rationale] | 3 | [rationale] | 4 | [rationale] | 5 |
## Weighted Scores
| Option | Weighted Score | Rank |
|--------|---------------|------|
| Option A | 3.80 | 1 |
| Option C | 3.40 | 2 |
| Option B | 3.85 | 1 |
GATE: Present the scored matrix and get user validation on scores before delivering the recommendation.
Phase 3: Recommend
Deliver a clear recommendation with reasoning.
Recommendation Format
## Recommendation
**Winner:** [Option] with a weighted score of [X.XX]
**Why this wins:** [2-3 sentences explaining the key differentiators]
**Key trade-off:** [What you give up by choosing this option vs. the runner-up]
**Gut check:** Does this match your intuition? If the matrix says Option A but your gut says Option B, examine which criteria might be underweighted.
Sensitivity Analysis
Test whether the result holds if weights shift:
- "If you increased [criteria] weight by 10%, [Option X] would overtake [Option Y]"
- Flag any decision where the top two options are within 0.3 points — this means the decision is close and additional factors may matter
Risk Flags
Note any option that scores below 2 on a high-weight criterion, even if the total score is high. A single critical weakness can sink an otherwise strong option.
Phase 4: Document
Provide a decision record for future reference.
Decision Record Template
## Decision Record
**Decision:** [Statement]
**Date:** [Date]
**Decision maker:** [Name]
**Chosen option:** [Option]
**Weighted score:** [X.XX]
**Key reasons:** [3 bullet points]
**Key risks:** [Known risks of the chosen option]
**Review date:** [When to evaluate if this was the right call]
Anti-Patterns
- Too many criteria — more than 7 criteria dilutes the signal. Force-rank and keep the top 5-7.
- Equal weights — giving every criterion 20% means you have not thought about what matters most.
- Scoring without justification — a score of 4 means nothing without a one-line rationale.
- Ignoring gut disagreement — if the matrix says one thing and your instinct says another, the weights are probably wrong.
- Using a matrix for obvious decisions — if you already know the answer, do not build a matrix to justify it.
Recovery
- User cannot identify criteria: Suggest 5 based on the decision type (see table above) and ask them to remove any that do not apply.
- Options are too similar: Add differentiating criteria or increase the scoring granularity to 1-10 instead of 1-5.
- Scores are all 3s: Challenge the user — "A 3 means average. Is this option truly average on [criteria], or is it actually a 2 or 4?" Push for honest differentiation.
- User disagrees with the result: Ask which score they would change. Often one re-scored criterion flips the result, revealing what they actually value most.
- Stakeholders disagree on weights: Have each stakeholder assign weights independently, then average them. Discuss any criteria where weights diverge by more than 15%.
