compare-options

name	compare-options
description	Multi-expert comparison and ranking of options with structured deliberation. PROACTIVELY activate for: (1) decision making between alternatives, (2) trade-off analysis, (3) option evaluation, (4) vendor/tool comparison, (5) strategy selection. Triggers: "compare options", "evaluate alternatives", "rank options", "which should I choose", "compare these", "trade-off analysis", "decision between"
argument-hint	["options as comma-separated list or description"]

Compare Options

Multi-expert comparison and ranking of options using structured deliberation.

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to:

• Compare multiple alternatives systematically
• Evaluate trade-offs between options
• Get diverse expert perspectives on a decision
• Rank options with transparent criteria
• Make decisions with documented rationale

Workflow

Invoke the expert-panel-deliberation skill for:

Options to compare: $ARGUMENTS

Default Parameters

Parameter	Value	Rationale
panel_size	5	Diverse perspectives without analysis paralysis
output_format	ranking	Produces prioritized list with scores
deliberation_depth	standard	Balanced thoroughness
include_challenger	true	Include devil's advocate perspective
consensus_required	false	Allow minority opinions

Expert Panel Assembly

The panel is dynamically composed based on the decision domain:

For Technical Decisions:

• Solution Architect
• Performance Specialist
• Security Expert
• DevOps/Operations
• End User Advocate

For Business Decisions:

• Strategic Planner
• Financial Analyst
• Market Expert
• Operations Lead
• Customer Representative

For Product Decisions:

• Product Strategist
• UX Designer
• Engineering Lead
• Business Analyst
• Customer Advocate

Deliberation Process

Round 1: Independent Assessment

Each expert evaluates all options against criteria:

• Scores each option (1-10) on their specialty dimensions
• Documents key strengths and weaknesses
• Identifies critical risks or blockers

Round 2: Cross-Examination

Experts challenge each other's assessments:

• Surface hidden assumptions
• Probe trade-off implications
• Identify overlooked factors

Round 3: Synthesis

Panel converges on:

• Weighted ranking of options
• Key trade-offs documented
• Recommended choice with rationale
• Conditions under which ranking changes

Evaluation Criteria Framework

Standard criteria (customized to domain):

Criterion	Weight	Description
Effectiveness	25%	How well does it solve the core problem?
Cost/Effort	20%	Total cost of ownership, implementation effort
Risk	20%	What can go wrong? Likelihood and impact
Scalability	15%	Does it grow with needs?
Reversibility	10%	Can we change course if needed?
Time to Value	10%	How quickly do we see benefits?

Output Format

The comparison produces:

<option-comparison>
  <header>
    <id>[unique identifier]</id>
    <decision_context>[What we're deciding]</decision_context>
    <options_count>[number of options]</options_count>
  </header>

  <options>
    <option id="[A|B|C|...]" name="[option name]">
      <description>[Brief description]</description>
    </option>
  </options>

  <expert-panel>
    <expert role="[role]" specialty="[area]">
      <scores>
        <score option="A" value="[1-10]" rationale="[brief reason]"/>
        <score option="B" value="[1-10]" rationale="[brief reason]"/>
      </scores>
      <recommendation>[Expert's top pick and why]</recommendation>
    </expert>
    <!-- ... more experts ... -->
  </expert-panel>

  <deliberation-summary>
    <consensus_points>
      <point>[What experts agreed on]</point>
    </consensus_points>
    <debate_points>
      <point>[Where experts disagreed and resolution]</point>
    </debate_points>
  </deliberation-summary>

  <final-ranking>
    <rank position="1" option="[option]" score="[weighted score]">
      <rationale>[Why this is ranked first]</rationale>
      <caveats>[When this might not be the best choice]</caveats>
    </rank>
    <rank position="2" option="[option]" score="[weighted score]">
      <rationale>[Why second]</rationale>
      <when_preferred>[Conditions where this beats #1]</when_preferred>
    </rank>
    <!-- ... more ranks ... -->
  </final-ranking>

  <trade-off-matrix>
    <trade-off>
      <options>[Option A vs Option B]</options>
      <dimension>[What you trade off]</dimension>
      <analysis>[Detailed trade-off analysis]</analysis>
    </trade-off>
  </trade-off-matrix>

  <recommendation>
    <primary>[Top recommended option]</primary>
    <confidence>[high|medium|low]</confidence>
    <conditions>[When this recommendation applies]</conditions>
    <alternative>[When to choose differently]</alternative>
  </recommendation>

  <next-steps>
    <step>[Concrete action to proceed]</step>
  </next-steps>
</option-comparison>

Quality Gates

• All options fairly represented
• Criteria weights appropriate for context
• Each expert provided independent assessment
• Trade-offs explicitly documented
• Minority opinions captured
• Recommendation includes confidence and conditions
• Next steps are actionable

Related Skills

After comparing options, consider:

• Run /research-brief to deep-dive on top choice
• Run /write-howto for implementation guide
• Run /evaluate-schema if choice involves data design
• Run /optimize-prompt if choice involves AI/prompting