dcm-decomposition

name	dcm - Decomposition
description	Break complex goals into simpler, manageable sub-goals
output	{"format":"prose"}

Decomposition

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Interpretations

Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:

Interpretation 1 — Project breakdown: You have a large goal or project and need to break it into manageable, assignable pieces with clear dependencies (e.g., "break this project into tasks" or "this is too big — where do I start?"). Interpretation 2 — Complexity reduction: You have something conceptually complex — a system, argument, or problem — and need to decompose it into simpler parts you can understand individually (e.g., "I can't wrap my head around this" or "simplify this into parts I can reason about"). Interpretation 3 — Scope definition: You're not sure what's actually included in a vague or sprawling goal, and need decomposition to reveal what's really involved and set boundaries (e.g., "what does 'improve the product' actually entail?" or "what am I really committing to here?").

If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with breaking a project into tasks, simplifying something complex into understandable parts, or clarifying what a vague goal actually involves — which fits?" If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.

Overview

Break complex goals into simpler, manageable sub-goals

Steps

Step 1: Assess decomposition need

Determine if and why decomposition is needed:

• Is goal too big to tackle at once?
• Are there clearly distinct components?
• Would parallel work be beneficial?

Step 2: Select decomposition strategy

Choose the most appropriate strategy:

Functional: Use when goal has distinct functions

• "Build a robot" → locomotion, sensing, control, power

Temporal: Use when goal has natural phases

• "Launch product" → research, build, test, launch

Structural: Use when goal has physical/logical parts

• "Build house" → foundation, framing, electrical, plumbing

Stakeholder: Use when different people need different things

• "Improve satisfaction" → customer needs, employee needs, partner needs

Step 3: Identify sub-goals

Apply selected strategy to identify sub-goals:

1. List all components/phases/functions
2. Name each as a sub-goal
3. Ensure sub-goals cover the whole goal
4. Check for gaps (is anything missing?)

Sub-goal quality criteria:

• SIMPLER than parent (can be understood independently)
• COMPLETE (together achieve the parent)
• INDEPENDENT (minimal overlap)
• ACTIONABLE (can be worked on)
• MEASURABLE (can track progress)

Step 4: Check completeness (MECE)

Verify decomposition is Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive:

Mutually Exclusive: Sub-goals don't overlap

• If two sub-goals could both address the same work, merge or clarify

Collectively Exhaustive: Sub-goals cover everything

• If achieving all sub-goals wouldn't achieve parent, something is missing

Step 5: Identify dependencies

For each pair of sub-goals, determine if:

• A depends on B (B must complete before A starts)
• A and B are independent (can happen in parallel)
• A and B are sequential (must happen in order)

Build dependency graph showing relationships.

Step 6: Calculate critical path

Find the longest chain of dependent sub-goals:

1. Start from sub-goals with no dependencies
2. Follow dependency chains
3. Find longest path (this is your minimum time)

Critical path determines earliest possible completion.

Step 7: Check for further decomposition

For each sub-goal, ask:

• Is this sub-goal still too complex?
• Should it be decomposed further?

If yes and within max_depth:

• Recursively apply decomposition to that sub-goal
• Note parent-child relationship

When to Use

• Goal is too complex to tackle directly
• Need to break down work into phases
• Multiple parallel efforts needed
• Goal has multiple distinct components
• Team needs to divide work
• Complexity assessment shows "Complicated" or "Complex"

Verification

• Sub-goals are simpler than original goal
• Sub-goals together achieve original goal (collective exhaustiveness)
• Sub-goals don't overlap significantly (mutual exclusiveness)
• Dependencies are identified and make sense
• Critical path is realistic

---