| name | codexkit-decision-log |
| description | Record and track organizational decisions using the RAPID framework. Captures decision context, options analysis, RAPID roles, risk assessment, and communication plan. Use when making cross-functional decisions, documenting governance choices, or building an auditable decision trail. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | knowledge |
Decision Log
When to Use
- When a decision affects multiple teams or has lasting consequences
- When leadership needs an auditable trail of why choices were made
- When recurring decisions need a consistent framework
- When decisions stall due to unclear ownership or roles
Procedure
Step 1 — Frame the Decision
| Element | Description |
|---|
| Decision ID | DEC-YYYY-NNN |
| Title | One-line description |
| Category | Strategic / Tactical / Operational |
| Urgency | Critical (24h) / High (1 week) / Normal (2 weeks) / Low |
| Reversibility | Easy / Moderate / Difficult / Irreversible |
| Scope | Who and what is affected |
Step 2 — RAPID Roles
Assign clear decision roles:
| Role | Person | Responsibility |
|---|
| R — Recommend | [Name] | Researches, proposes recommendation |
| A — Agree | [Names] | Must agree before approval (has veto) |
| P — Perform | [Names] | Implements the decision |
| I — Input | [Names] | Provides data/perspective (no veto) |
| D — Decide | [Name] | Makes the final call (ONE person) |
Rule: Exactly one D. Multiple A/P/I are fine.
Step 3 — Options Analysis
| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C (Status Quo) |
|---|
| Cost | $50K | $30K | $0 |
| Time to implement | 3 months | 6 months | — |
| Risk | Low | Medium | High (doing nothing) |
| Alignment with strategy | High | Medium | Low |
Step 4 — Risk Assessment
| Option | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|
| A | Vendor lock-in | Medium | High | Contractual exit clause |
| B | Team capacity | High | Medium | Phase rollout |
Step 5 — Decision Record
Decision: We will proceed with Option A
Rationale: Best alignment with strategy, acceptable cost, low risk
Trade-offs accepted: Higher cost than Option B
Conditions: Must complete vendor contract review by [date]
Review date: [6 months from now]
Step 6 — Communication Plan
| Audience | Channel | Timing | Message |
|---|
| Leadership | Email summary | Day 1 | Decision + rationale |
| Affected teams | Team meeting | Day 2 | Impact + timeline |
| Broader org | Slack / Newsletter | Day 5 | High-level announcement |
Inputs
| Input | Required | Format |
|---|
| Decision topic | Yes | What is being decided |
| Options | Yes | At least 2 including status quo |
| Stakeholders | Yes | Who is affected / involved |
| Constraints | Recommended | Timeline, budget, dependencies |
Output
## Decision Record — DEC-2024-012
### Migrate Primary Database to PostgreSQL
**Status:** Accepted | **Date:** 2024-03-15
**Decided by:** CTO | **Recommended by:** Platform Lead
### RAPID
[Roles table]
### Options Considered
[Comparison matrix]
### Decision
We will migrate to PostgreSQL 16 managed on AWS RDS.
### Rationale
- Team expertise (8/10 engineers proficient)
- 40% cost reduction vs current Oracle license
- Acceptable migration risk with phased approach
### Communication Plan
[Audience → Channel → Timing table]
Definition of Done
Quality Criteria
Verification (4C)
| Check | Question |
|---|
| Correctness | Do referenced frameworks and standards match their official definitions? |
| Completeness | Are all key concepts covered without significant gaps for the stated audience? |
| Context-fit | Would this be useful for someone new to this domain, or is it too advanced/too basic? |
| Consequence | If a stakeholder acted on this immediately, what could they misinterpret? |
Edge Cases
- Conflicting frameworks — State which framework takes precedence and why. Document the trade-off explicitly.
- Rapidly changing domain — Note information currency date. Flag sections likely to need updates.
- Audience has mixed expertise levels — Provide a glossary and mark advanced sections as optional.
Changelog
