| name | decision-review |
| description | Post-decision analysis - review outcomes against predictions, identify lessons, update patterns |
Decision Review
Purpose: Analyze how a past decision played out to improve future decision-making.
Announce: "Using decision-review to analyze how this decision played out."
When to Use
Invoke this skill when:
- A scheduled review date has arrived
- An exit trigger has activated
- Sufficient time has passed to observe outcomes
- Circumstances have materially changed
- You want to learn from a past decision (success or failure)
- Building a track record for calibration purposes
Process
Step 1: Retrieve Original Decision
Load the decision artifact and review what was decided.
Questions to answer:
- What was the decision?
- What was the recommendation?
- What were the Must-Be-True conditions?
- What risks were identified?
- What Exit Criteria were established?
- What alternatives were rejected?
## Original Decision Summary
**Decision Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Decision:** [What was decided]
**Recommendation at time:** [Proceed/Do Not Proceed]
**Confidence at time:** [High/Medium/Low]
**Must-Be-True Conditions:**
1. [Condition 1]
2. [Condition 2]
3. [Condition 3]
**Identified Risks:**
1. [Risk 1]
2. [Risk 2]
3. [Risk 3]
**Exit Criteria:**
- [Tripwire 1]
- [Tripwire 2]
Step 2: Document Outcomes
Record what actually happened since the decision was made.
Outcome Assessment Questions:
- What was the actual result?
- How does it compare to expectations?
- What unexpected events occurred?
- Which exit triggers, if any, were hit?
- What's the current status?
Outcome Categories:
| Category | Description |
|---|
| Success | Objectives achieved, decision validated |
| Partial Success | Some objectives achieved, some missed |
| Neutral | Neither clear success nor failure |
| Partial Failure | Significant objectives missed |
| Failure | Decision did not achieve intended outcomes |
| Reversed | Decision was undone or significantly changed |
## Actual Outcomes
**Review Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Time Since Decision:** [duration]
**Overall Outcome:** [Success/Partial Success/Neutral/Partial Failure/Failure/Reversed]
**What Happened:**
[Narrative description of actual events and outcomes]
**Unexpected Events:**
- [Event 1]
- [Event 2]
**Exit Triggers Hit:**
- [ ] [Trigger 1] - [hit/not hit]
- [ ] [Trigger 2] - [hit/not hit]
**Current Status:**
[Where things stand now]
Step 3: Analyze Predictions
Compare predictions against reality to calibrate future judgment.
Must-Be-True Conditions Accuracy:
For each condition identified at decision time:
- Did it hold true?
- If not, what happened instead?
- How critical was the failure?
Risk Predictions Accuracy:
For each risk identified:
- Did it materialize?
- Was severity/likelihood accurate?
- Were mitigations effective?
Unidentified Factors:
- What important factors were not anticipated?
- What risks materialized that weren't on the list?
- What opportunities emerged unexpectedly?
## Prediction Analysis
### Must-Be-True Conditions
| Condition | Held True? | What Actually Happened |
|-----------|------------|----------------------|
| [Condition 1] | Yes/No/Partial | [Reality] |
| [Condition 2] | Yes/No/Partial | [Reality] |
| [Condition 3] | Yes/No/Partial | [Reality] |
**Condition Accuracy:** [X of Y conditions held true]
### Risk Predictions
| Risk | Materialized? | Predicted L/I | Actual L/I | Mitigation Worked? |
|------|---------------|---------------|------------|-------------------|
| [Risk 1] | Yes/No | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | Yes/No/Partial |
| [Risk 2] | Yes/No | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | Yes/No/Partial |
| [Risk 3] | Yes/No | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | Yes/No/Partial |
**Risk Prediction Accuracy:** [X of Y risks correctly assessed]
### Blind Spots
Factors we didn't anticipate:
1. [Blind spot 1 - what was missed]
2. [Blind spot 2 - what was missed]
Step 4: Identify Lessons
Extract actionable learning from the analysis.
What We Got Right:
- Which predictions were accurate?
- Which parts of the process worked well?
- What should we repeat?
What We Got Wrong:
- Which predictions failed?
- Where did analysis fall short?
- What should we avoid?
What We Should Do Differently:
- Process improvements for future decisions
- New questions to ask
- New checks to perform
- Biases to watch for
## Key Lessons
### What We Got Right
- [Lesson 1]
- [Lesson 2]
### What We Got Wrong
- [Lesson 1]
- [Lesson 2]
### Process Improvements
For future similar decisions:
1. [Improvement 1]
2. [Improvement 2]
3. [Improvement 3]
### Bias Observations
Biases that affected this decision:
- [Bias 1 and how it manifested]
- [Bias 2 and how it manifested]
Step 5: Update Patterns
Document insights for use in future decisions.
Pattern Recognition:
- Does this decision fit a pattern of past successes or failures?
- What decision type does this represent?
- What heuristics should be updated?
Calibration Update:
- How should this affect confidence in similar future decisions?
- Were we overconfident or underconfident?
- What's our track record in this domain now?
Knowledge Base Updates:
- New facts to add to institutional knowledge
- Updated risk assessments for similar situations
- Revised assumptions about key variables
## Pattern Updates
### Decision Type
[Category of decision - e.g., vendor selection, strategic pivot, hiring]
### Updated Heuristics
For similar decisions in the future:
- [Heuristic 1]
- [Heuristic 2]
### Calibration Adjustment
- Previous confidence level: [X]
- Recommended adjustment: [raise/lower/maintain]
- Track record in this domain: [X successes / Y failures]
### Institutional Knowledge
Add to knowledge base:
- [Fact/insight 1]
- [Fact/insight 2]
Output Template
Generate a comprehensive review document:
# Decision Review: [Decision Name]
## Summary
| Aspect | Original | Actual |
|--------|----------|--------|
| **Decision Date** | [YYYY-MM-DD] | - |
| **Review Date** | - | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| **Time Elapsed** | - | [duration] |
| **Recommendation** | [Proceed/Do Not Proceed] | - |
| **Confidence** | [High/Medium/Low] | - |
| **Outcome** | - | [Success/Partial/Failure] |
## Prediction Accuracy
### Must-Be-True Conditions
**Accuracy:** [X/Y] conditions held true
| Condition | Predicted | Actual | Match |
|-----------|-----------|--------|-------|
| [Condition 1] | Must hold | [Yes/No] | [check/X] |
| [Condition 2] | Must hold | [Yes/No] | [check/X] |
### Risk Predictions
**Accuracy:** [X/Y] risks correctly predicted
| Risk | Predicted | Materialized | Severity Match |
|------|-----------|--------------|----------------|
| [Risk 1] | [L/I] | [Yes/No] | [check/X] |
| [Risk 2] | [L/I] | [Yes/No] | [check/X] |
### Blind Spots
- [Unanticipated factor 1]
- [Unanticipated factor 2]
## Key Lessons
### What Worked
1. [Success factor 1]
2. [Success factor 2]
### What Didn't Work
1. [Failure factor 1]
2. [Failure factor 2]
### Process Improvements
1. [Improvement 1]
2. [Improvement 2]
## Recommendations
### For Similar Future Decisions
- [Recommendation 1]
- [Recommendation 2]
### Calibration Update
[How this affects confidence in similar decisions]
### Follow-up Actions
- [ ] [Action 1]
- [ ] [Action 2]
---
*Review conducted: [date]*
*Reviewer: [name/role]*
*Original decision: [link to decision artifact]*
Save Location
Save the review document to:
docs/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-<decision-slug>/review-[date].md
Where:
YYYY-MM-DD-<decision-slug> matches the original decision directory[date] is the review date in YYYY-MM-DD format
Example: docs/decisions/2024-03-15-vendor-selection/review-2024-09-15.md
Exit Criteria
- Original decision artifact retrieved and summarized
- Actual outcomes documented with evidence
- All Must-Be-True conditions assessed
- All predicted risks evaluated
- Blind spots identified
- Lessons extracted and actionable
- Patterns documented for future use
- Review document saved to correct location
Integration with Calibration
Reviews feed the calibration system:
- Track prediction accuracy over time
- Identify systematic biases in forecasting
- Build domain-specific confidence adjustments
- Improve the decision-making process itself
After completing a review, consider:
- Is this a pattern that affects other pending decisions?
- Should exit criteria on other decisions be updated?
- Does this change institutional risk tolerance?
