decision-making

name	decision-making
description	Use when facing a significant decision with multiple viable paths - choosing between approaches, architectures, tools, or solutions. Applies the 1-3-1 method for structured decision-making.

Decision-Making with the 1-3-1 Method

Overview

A structured framework for making significant decisions. Prevents analysis paralysis while ensuring thorough consideration of alternatives.

Core principle: One problem, three options, one recommendation.

When to Use

• Choosing between technical approaches or architectures
• Selecting tools, frameworks, or libraries
• Deciding on implementation strategies
• Resolving design trade-offs
• Any decision where multiple viable paths exist

The 1-3-1 Method

Step 1: Identify 1 Core Problem

Distill the decision into a single, clear problem statement.

Good: "Which authentication strategy balances security with implementation speed?" Bad: "How should we build the login system?"

Step 2: Propose 3 Options

Generate three distinctly different approaches. Each must:

• Be viable and address the core problem
• Represent a genuinely different path (not variations of the same idea)
• Include trade-offs (pros/cons)

Step 3: Give 1 Recommendation

Evaluate options against relevant criteria and recommend one.

Evaluation criteria (select relevant ones):

• Implementation complexity
• Time to delivery
• Maintainability
• Scalability
• Risk level
• Cost
• Team expertise

Output Format

**Core Problem:** [Clear, specific problem statement]

**Option 1:** [Name]
[Description]
- Pros: [advantages]
- Cons: [disadvantages]

**Option 2:** [Name]
[Description]
- Pros: [advantages]
- Cons: [disadvantages]

**Option 3:** [Name]
[Description]
- Pros: [advantages]
- Cons: [disadvantages]

**Recommendation:** [Chosen option]
**Reasoning:** [Brief explanation of why this is the best approach]

Prerequisites (for complex decisions)

For significant decisions, gather these 4 inputs first:

1. Context – Why is this decision being made? What triggered it?
2. Constraints – What are the non-negotiables? (time, budget, tech stack)
3. Stakeholders – Who is affected? What do they care about?
4. Success criteria – How will we know we made the right choice?

Examples

Quick Decision

Core Problem: Which HTTP client library for our Node.js API?

Option 1: Axios - Popular, promise-based, good interceptors Option 2: node-fetch - Minimal, native fetch API Option 3: Got - Feature-rich, retry built-in, TypeScript native

Recommendation: Got Reasoning: TypeScript-first, built-in retry logic reduces boilerplate, active maintenance.

Complex Decision

When the decision has significant impact, use the full format with prerequisites gathered first.

Red Flags

• Only 1-2 options considered – You're not exploring the solution space
• Options are too similar – Push for genuinely different approaches
• No clear recommendation – Take a stance; "it depends" isn't helpful
• Recommendation doesn't match reasoning – Ensure logic supports conclusion
• Skipping the problem statement – Unclear problem leads to unclear solutions

Integration

This skill is used by these workflows:

• /create-feature – Feature development decisions
• /create-epic – Epic decomposition strategies
• /create-bugfix – Root cause and fix approach selection
• /suggest-solutions – General problem-solving

Invoke with @decision-making for standalone use.