| name | fpf-selection |
| description | Perform qualitative Pareto analysis on variants, apply explicit selection policy, record stepping-stone bets. Think through the trade-offs using the selection template. |
| argument-hint | [selection-context] |
What this skill IS
This is deliberate choice with trade-off awareness, not picking the obvious winner. You are mapping the Pareto front, stating your selection policy BEFORE applying it, and preserving stepping stones.
Key discipline: Never collapse NQD to a single score. Hold the Pareto front. State why you're choosing one point on the front over others.
Prerequisites
- SPORT-* with NQD-characterized variants (≥3)
- CHR-* with indicators and comparison rules
- PROB-* with acceptance criteria
- If comparing variants with measurable indicators: PAR-* parity plan (invoke
/fpf-parity first)
Output
.fpf/decisions/SEL-${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID}--<slug>.md
Constraints (quality bar)
- C1: Selection policy stated BEFORE applying — not post-hoc rationalized
- C2: Dominance table complete — every variant on every CHR indicator (multi-dimensional Q)
- C3: Pareto front identified (non-dominated variants)
- C4: ≥1 stepping-stone bet — non-dominant variant preserved with conditions to reconsider
- C5: "What would change this" section filled — what evidence or constraint shift would reverse selection
- C6: Missing inputs (portfolio, passport, problem card) flagged explicitly
- C7: WLNK comparison — dominance analysis MUST consider each variant's weakest link. A variant whose weakest link is weaker than another's is dominated on that axis.
- C8: MONO check — if the selected variant is more complex than alternatives (more components, more abstractions), state why the added complexity is justified given the new weak links it introduces.
Format
# Selection Record
- **ID:** SEL-... **Portfolio:** SPORT-... **Passport:** CHR-...
- **valid_until:** YYYY-MM-DD
## ConstraintFit eligibility (admission gate)
(hard constraints — variants failing these are INELIGIBLE regardless of NQD scores: safety, compliance, cost ceiling, ...)
| Variant | Must-constraints | Pass/Fail |
## Selection policy
(stated before applying — e.g., "maximize latency within cost constraint" or "learning value first")
- Main criterion: ...
- Tie-breakers (in order): ...
- Minimum trust level: (what counts as "sufficiently verified" for this selection)
## Dominance table
| Variant | [CHR indicator 1] | [CHR indicator 2] | ... | WLNK | N | D_p | Dominated by |
## Pareto front
(non-dominated variants)
## Decision
Selected: V[N]. Rationale. What was sacrificed. Why this point on the Pareto front.
## Stepping-stone bets
| Variant | Why preserve | What future space it opens | Condition to reconsider |
## MONO assessment
(If selected variant is more complex than alternatives: what new weak links, and why is added complexity justified?)
## What would change this
(what evidence, constraint change, or new information would reverse this selection)
## valid_until
(when does this selection go stale?)
