codexkit-decision-log

# 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 ```markdown ## 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 - [ ] Decision clearly framed with category and urgency - [ ] RAPID roles assigned (exactly one D) - [ ] Options compared including status quo - [ ] Risks identified per option - [ ] Decision recorded with rationale - [ ] Communication plan defined ## Quality Criteria - [ ] All claims reference specific frameworks, standards, or quantifiable data - [ ] Content matches the stated audience's expertise level - [ ] Recommendations are actionable — each includes a concrete next step - [ ] No unsupported assertions or generic filler language ## 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 - v1.0.0 — Initial release