decision-memo

name	decision-memo
description	Writes a concise, human-readable decision brief summarizing the full validation analysis — including score, verdict, RAT experiment, pre-mortem, and tier-appropriate next actions. The document a founder actually acts on.

Skill: decision-memo

Purpose

After all analysis is complete, produce a document the user can actually act on. This is not a report — it is a decision brief. It surfaces the most important signals, names the riskiest assumption, and gives a concrete next action calibrated to the founder's tier. A good decision memo makes the reader feel slightly uncomfortable — that means it's honest.

Input

• Idea slug
• memory/ideas/<slug>/scores.json (required — includes RAT)
• memory/ideas/<slug>/weaknesses.json (if available)
• memory/ideas/<slug>/pivot_options.json (if available and verdict is "pivot")
• All other available dimension files in memory/ideas/<slug>/
• memory/user_profile.md (for tier-appropriate recommendations)

Writing Principles

The memo must be scannable in under 2 minutes. Follow these rules:

1. No hedging. "This might work if…" is banned. State the verdict and own it.
2. Evidence over opinion. Every strength and risk must cite a specific data point from a dimension file (k-factor, LTV:CAC ratio, D30 retention, WTP range, etc.).
3. Asymmetric emphasis on risks. Humans overweight strengths and underweight risks. The memo corrects for this by giving risks more detail than strengths.
4. One clear next action. Not three options — one. The alternative path exists only as a contingency.
5. Respect the founder's tier. Don't tell a beginner to "optimize your Meta ads funnel." Don't tell a growth-tier founder to "watch some TikTok tutorials."

Formatting Constraints

Section	Max length	Purpose
Verdict line	1 sentence	Instant signal
Score + confidence	1 line	Quantitative anchor
Validation watermark	1–2 lines	Trust calibration (only if confidence < high)
Top 3 Strengths	1 sentence each, with one data point	What's working
Top 3 Risks	2 sentences each: the risk + what happens if ignored	What kills it
Riskiest Assumption	3–5 sentences	The one thing to test before building anything
Pre-mortem	3 bullet points	Failure imagination exercise
Recommended Next Step	2–4 sentences with specifics	What to do this week
Kill criteria	1–2 sentences	When to walk away
Alternative Path	1–2 sentences	Plan B

Total memo length: ~400–600 words. If it's longer, cut. Brevity is a feature.

Process

1. Load scores.json and all available dimension files.
2. Check score_confidence. If "low", compose a validation watermark (see below).
3. Identify the 3 highest-scoring dimensions → strengths. For each, pull one concrete data point from the source file (e.g., "k-factor estimated at 0.6" not "good viral potential").
4. Identify the 3 lowest-scoring dimensions → risks. For each, describe what goes wrong if ignored. If weaknesses.json exists, use its root_cause_type and failure_mode to add specificity.
5. Extract the RAT from scores.json.riskiest_assumption_test. Frame it as the one question to answer before writing a line of code.
6. Run a pre-mortem: assume the idea failed 12 months from now. Write 3 most likely causes of death based on the risk profile.
7. Compose the recommended next step:
   • If verdict = pursue: the next step is to build a scoped MVP (define what "scoped" means for this idea).
   • If verdict = test: the next step IS the RAT experiment from scores.json. Restate it with concrete specifics (channel, spend, threshold, timeline).
   • If verdict = pivot: the next step is the recommended pivot from pivot_options.json (if available) or running the pivot-engine skill.
   • If verdict = drop: the next step is to archive and move on. Name one thing learned from the analysis that applies to future ideas.
8. Define kill criteria: the specific outcome that means "stop and move on." This is the inverse of the RAT pass threshold.
9. Write the alternative path — what to do if the recommended step fails or the kill criteria is met.
10. Write the memo following the template below.

Validation Watermark

If score_confidence from scores.json is not "high", insert a watermark immediately after the score line:

Confidence	Watermark
medium	"This score is based on incomplete data. {list missing dimensions}. Run these analyses before making a build/no-build decision."
low	"LOW CONFIDENCE — Only {N} of 7 dimensions scored. This verdict is directional, not conclusive. Required before acting: {list mandatory missing analyses}."

Pre-mortem Method

The pre-mortem is a proven debiasing technique (Klein, 2007). It forces the founder to imagine failure before committing resources.

Instructions:

1. Assume the idea launched and failed within 12 months.
2. Working backward from the risk profile and killer dimensions, write the 3 most probable causes of death.
3. Each cause must be specific and tied to a scored dimension — not generic ("ran out of money" is too vague; "CAC exceeded LTV by 4x because TikTok organic reach declined and no paid channel was viable under $500/mo" is useful).

Output

Write to memory/ideas/<slug>/decision_memo.md:

---
idea_slug: ""
verdict: "pursue | test | pivot | drop"
final_score: 0
score_confidence: "high | medium | low"
created_at: ""
---

# Decision Memo: <Idea Name>

## Verdict: <PURSUE / TEST / PIVOT / DROP>

**Score: X/100** | Confidence: <high / medium / low>

<Validation watermark — only if confidence is medium or low>

---

## Why This Score

<2–3 sentences explaining what the score means in plain language. Not a recap of methodology — a statement of what the analysis revealed about this idea's viability.>

## Top 3 Strengths

1. **<Dimension>** (<score>/100): <one sentence with specific data point>
2. **<Dimension>** (<score>/100): <one sentence with specific data point>
3. **<Dimension>** (<score>/100): <one sentence with specific data point>

## Top 3 Risks

1. **<Dimension>** (<score>/100): <the risk>. <what happens if ignored — the failure mode.>
2. **<Dimension>** (<score>/100): <the risk>. <what happens if ignored — the failure mode.>
3. **<Dimension>** (<score>/100): <the risk>. <what happens if ignored — the failure mode.>

## Riskiest Assumption

The assumption most likely to kill this idea:

> "<the assumption, stated plainly>"

**Test it before building anything.** <Restate the RAT experiment: what to do, how long, how much it costs, and what "pass" looks like.>

## Pre-mortem: If This Fails in 12 Months

1. <Most likely cause of death — specific, tied to data>
2. <Second most likely cause — specific, tied to data>
3. <Third most likely cause — specific, tied to data>

---

## What To Do Now

<The one recommended next step — concrete, specific, calibrated to founder tier. Include timeline and cost if applicable.>

**Kill criteria:** <The specific outcome that means stop. e.g., "If landing page converts below 5% after 200 visitors, drop this idea.">

## If That Doesn't Work

<Alternative path — one sentence. What to do if the recommended step fails or kill criteria is met.>

Notes

• If the verdict is pivot and pivot_options.json exists, embed the recommended pivot in the "What To Do Now" section with enough detail to act on immediately.
• If the verdict is drop, the tone should be respectful but firm. Don't soften a drop verdict. The value of a good drop is the time it saves for the next idea.
• The memo should be re-generated whenever scores.json is updated (e.g., after a pivot re-score). Append a version note at the bottom: _v2 — re-scored after [pivot description]_.
• Decision memos are the primary artifact the user references after the session. Optimize for re-readability days later, not just first-read clarity.