decision-critic

name	decision-critic
version	1.0.0
description	Structured decision critic that systematically stress-tests reasoning before commitment surfacing hidden assumptions verifying claims and generating adversarial perspectives to improve decision quality. Do NOT use to surface failure risks pre-launch (use pre-mortem) or to probe why a constraint exists (use chestertons-fence).
model	claude-opus-4-6
license	MIT

Decision Critic

When this skill activates, you become a structured decision critic. Your role is to systematically stress-test reasoning before commitment, surfacing hidden assumptions, verifying claims, and generating adversarial perspectives.

Triggers

Activate when the user:

• Validate my thinking on...
• Poke holes in this decision
• Criticize this approach
• Stress-test this tradeoff
• Presents a decision rationale and asks for criticism

Process

DECOMPOSITION (1-2)    Extract claims, assumptions, constraints, judgments
        |              Assign stable IDs (C1, A1, K1, J1)
        v
VERIFICATION (3-4)     Generate verification questions
        |              Answer independently (factored verification)
        v              Mark: VERIFIED | FAILED | UNCERTAIN
CHALLENGE (5-6)        Contrarian perspective + alternative framing
        |
        v
SYNTHESIS (7)          Verdict: STAND (clean or flagged) | REVISE | ESCALATE

Scripts

decision-critic.py

python3 .claude/skills/decision-critic/scripts/decision-critic.py \
  --step-number <1-7> \
  --total-steps 7 \
  --decision "<decision text>" \
  --context "<constraints and background>" \
  --thoughts "<your accumulated analysis, IDs, and status from all previous steps>"

Exit Codes:

• 0: Successful completion
• 1: Invalid arguments or missing required parameters
• 2: Analysis failed or incomplete

Argument	Required	Description
--step-number	Yes	Current step (1-7)
--total-steps	Yes	Always 7
--decision	Step 1	The decision statement being criticized
--context	Step 1	Constraints, background, system context
--thoughts	Yes	Your analysis including all IDs and status from prior steps

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• Making a consequential decision that is hard to reverse
• Evaluating a plan, ADR, or design before commitment
• You want structured adversarial feedback, not just a second opinion

Use the independent-thinker agent instead when:

• You need strategic challenge on direction (whether, not how)
• The question is about project scope or priorities, not technical reasoning

Anti-Patterns

Avoid	Why	Instead
Running critique after commitment	Too late to change course	Critique before finalizing decisions
Accepting STAND verdict without reading analysis	Misses nuanced findings	Review all UNCERTAIN and FAILED items
Skipping the inversion step	Misses failure modes that forward reasoning overlooks	Always run Steps 5-6
Using for trivial decisions	Wastes time on low-stakes choices	Reserve for consequential, hard-to-reverse decisions

Verification

After execution:

• All claims have status: VERIFIED, FAILED, or UNCERTAIN
• Contrarian perspective generated (Step 5)
• Final verdict is one of: STAND (clean or flagged), REVISE, ESCALATE. A STAND is flagged (capped, not clean) when the rewrite-regression check answered questions 1 through 4 but left question 5 (institutional incentive) unanswered
• Inversion analysis covers at least 3 failure modes
• Rewrite-regression check applied as a halt criterion when the decision is a rewrite, refactor, or migration justified by improvement. Evaluate this check during verification (Steps 3 and 4), before settling on a verdict: a STAND verdict is not valid while the rewrite-regression halt is open. If the proposer can answer only the v0 win and not the baseline, the v1 projection, and the regression plan, HALT the decision: ESCALATE when only the v0 win exists, REVISE for partial-answer cases per the reference table, rather than rubber-stamp it. When questions 1 through 4 are answered but question 5 (the institutional incentive that produced the original problem) is not, cap the verdict at a flagged STAND, not a clean STAND: record the unaddressed friction as a flag instead of rubber-stamping a clean pass. See Rewrite-Regression Check.

References

• Chesterton's Fence - Understand why something exists before removing or changing it
• Conway's Law - System structure mirrors org communication structure; apply when a diff crosses a module boundary
• Gall's Law - Complex working systems evolved from simple working systems
• Fat Tails - Extreme outcomes dominate fat-tailed domains; distrust averages and Gaussian risk metrics
• Boy Scout Rule - Scope boundaries for incremental improvement decisions
• Brandolini's Law - Refutation costs more than assertion; allocate review burden by claim asymmetry
• Falsifiability - Reject claims with no measurable success criterion
• Survivorship Bias - Avoid drawing conclusions from winners while ignoring failures
• Systems Thinking - Trace second-order effects and feedback loops in decisions
• Rewrite-Regression Check - Halt criterion for "v0 was faster, v1 is worse" rewrites

Academic Grounding

This workflow synthesizes three empirically-validated techniques:

1. Chain-of-Verification (Dhuliawala et al., 2023) - Factored verification prevents confirmation bias
2. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) - Multiple reasoning paths reveal disagreement
3. Multi-Expert Prompting (Wang et al., 2024) - Diverse perspectives catch blind spots

Inversion Thinking Protocol

Before finalizing any decision, apply inversion to identify failure modes:

Step 1: State the Goal

Clearly articulate what success looks like.

Example: "Make the agent system reliable and maintainable"

Step 2: Invert the Goal

Flip it to identify failure modes: "How would we ensure the agent system fails?"

Step 3: List Failure Scenarios

Brainstorm specific ways to achieve failure:

• Remove all validation gates
• Allow circular agent delegation
• Make handoffs implicit
• Hide dependencies
• Skip documentation
• No testing strategy

Step 4: Reverse to Success Criteria

Convert each failure mode into a success criterion:

• Failure: "No validation gates" → Success: "Automated validation at every phase"
• Failure: "Circular delegation" → Success: "Clear hierarchy preventing loops"
• Failure: "Implicit handoffs" → Success: "Explicit handoff protocol"

Step 5: Validate Decision Against Inverted Criteria

Check if the decision being reviewed addresses each failure mode.

Output Template:

## Inversion Analysis

### Goal

[What success looks like]

### Inverted Goal (Failure)

[How to ensure failure]

### Failure Modes

1. [Failure mode 1]
2. [Failure mode 2]
3. [Failure mode 3]

### Success Criteria (Reversed)

1. [Success criterion 1 - addresses failure mode 1]
2. [Success criterion 2 - addresses failure mode 2]
3. [Success criterion 3 - addresses failure mode 3]

### Decision Validation

- [ ] Addresses failure mode 1: [Evidence]
- [ ] Addresses failure mode 2: [Evidence]
- [ ] Addresses failure mode 3: [Evidence]

Application: Use inversion thinking as final check before approving plans or ADRs.