tradeoff-articulator

name	tradeoff-articulator
description	Use when someone is weighing options or making a decision where something is being given up. Makes the cost structure of each option explicit — including hidden axes — without picking a winner. Triggers on: "tradeoff", "트레이드오프", "장단점", "pros and
scenarios	["Map out the tradeoffs between these two approaches","What am I actually giving up if I choose this?","This option looks obviously better — what am I missing?","이 두 선택지의 트레이드오프를 정리해줘","이걸 선택하면 뭘 포기하는 건지 명확하게 해줘","한 가지가 분명히 더 좋아 보이는데, 숨겨진 비용이 있을 것 같아"]
compatibility	{"recommended":["think-tool"],"optional":["sequential-thinking"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 사용자가 명시하지 않은 숨겨진 트레이드오프 축을 찾아내고 'free win' 프레이밍을 검증할 수 있습니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."}

Tradeoff Articulator

When to Use / When Not to Use

Use when:

• A decision involves giving up something real, even if it's not obvious yet
• Someone frames an option as "obviously better" (that framing hides tradeoffs)
• The costs of each option need to be visible before deciding

Not for:

• Making the actual choice once trade-offs are on the table
• Consequence chains after a decision (use second-order-thinker)

Process

Step 1 — Find the true axes.

MCP note: If think-tool is available, use it before accepting the user's framing of the axes. What axes are assumed? Are there hidden ones?

Most people name only the obvious axis. Probe for:

• Reversibility: can you undo this? What does undoing cost?
• Optionality: does this keep future paths open?
• Cognitive load: which is easier to maintain or explain?
• Risk profile: variance, not just expected value
• Who pays: cost shifted to users, teammates, future-you, downstream systems

Step 2 — Build the tradeoff matrix. Qualitative description first — no false-precision scores.

Option        | Speed | Cost | Reversibility | Cognitive Load | Risk
Option A      |  +++  |  --  |     high      |      low       | low variance
Option B      |   +   |  +   |     low       |      high      | high upside

Step 3 — Name opportunity costs. For the leading option: "Choosing X means giving up Y." Make it concrete, not vague ("giving up some flexibility" → "giving up the ability to switch databases without a full rewrite, ~3–6 weeks in year 2").

Step 4 — Surface multi-criteria conflicts. Find axis pairs that pull in opposite directions. Name the conflict — do not resolve it.

Step 5 — Check for hidden costs:

• Short-term vs long-term: does cheaper now create debt?
• Local vs systemic: does locally optimal create coordination costs elsewhere?
• Explicit vs implicit: is any cost being absorbed silently?

Output Template

1. Axes identified — including hidden ones surfaced
2. Tradeoff matrix — qualitative, not scored
3. Opportunity costs — explicit "choosing X gives up Y" statements
4. The real conflict — the axis pair where tension is unavoidable
5. Hidden costs — what's invisible in the original framing
6. Optional: "To decide, you need to answer: [the key question]"

Do NOT add a recommendation unless explicitly asked.

What Claude Does / What You Do

Claude	You
Finds hidden axes beyond what was named	Provide the options and stated tradeoffs
Names opportunity costs in concrete terms	Confirm whether the hidden axes are real in your context
Identifies where cost is being shifted rather than eliminated	Decide which axis matters most for your situation
Surfaces the unavoidable tension between conflicting axes	Make the choice with full cost visibility

Related Skills

• second-order-thinker — for downstream consequences of each option
• assumption-extractor — for surfacing premises that predetermine which tradeoffs appear