菜单
Systematically evaluate alternatives against weighted criteria using a structured decision matrix. Includes pairwise comparison for weighting, multi-criteria scoring, sensitivity analysis, and documented decision rationale.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Route any input through a branching question tree to narrow down the optimal response strategy before writing. Two stages — PERCEIVE (classify input) then ACT (select response). Covers all prompt types.
Generate exhaustive guesses about user input using ALL search methods with coverage tracking. Guessing is SEARCH through possibility space. Tracks space created vs space covered to ensure comprehensive exploration.
Systematically evaluate and select from a set of guesses, options, or possibilities. Combines ARAW analysis with prioritization to determine which guesses are strong, weak, actionable, or eliminable.
Extract hidden assumptions from any content. Surfaces what must be true for claims to hold, enabling deeper analysis.
Sub-orchestrator for analytical requests. Routes to decomposition, systems analysis, comparison, risk assessment, or synthesis based on what kind of analysis is needed.
Assume Right - Deep recursive rightness search. For every claim, assume it's right — find what must follow, then assume THOSE implications are right too. Recurse until bedrock. Track every claim found.
| name | tradestudy - Trade Study / Trade-off Analysis |
| description | Systematically evaluate alternatives against weighted criteria using a structured decision matrix. Includes pairwise comparison for weighting, multi-criteria scoring, sensitivity analysis, and documented decision rationale. |
| output | {"format":"table"} |
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:
Interpretation 1 — Evaluate defined alternatives: The user has specific alternatives they want to compare and needs a structured evaluation framework with weighted criteria to select the best option. Interpretation 2 — Generate AND evaluate alternatives: The user has a decision to make but hasn't fully defined the alternatives yet. Needs help identifying options and then evaluating them systematically. Interpretation 3 — Validate a previous decision: The user has already made a selection and wants to retroactively verify it was the right choice — or understand under what conditions a different choice would be better.
If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with evaluating specific alternatives you've already identified, generating and evaluating alternatives for a decision, or validating a decision you've already made — which fits?" If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.
Default: 2x. Parse depth from $ARGUMENTS if specified (e.g., "/tradestudy 4x [input]").
| Depth | Min Alternatives | Min Criteria | Min Sensitivity Checks | Min Risk Factors | Documentation Detail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1x | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | Summary |
| 2x | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | Standard |
| 4x | 4 | 8 | 6 | 8 | Detailed |
| 8x | 5 | 10 | 8 | 12 | Comprehensive |
| 16x | 6 | 12 | 10 | 16 | Exhaustive |
DECISION: [What decision is being made]
OBJECTIVE: [What outcome we're optimizing for]
SCOPE: [What's in and out of scope for this trade study]
CONSTRAINTS: [Hard constraints that any alternative must satisfy]
TIMELINE: [When this decision must be made]
DECISION AUTHORITY: [Who makes the final call]
REVERSIBILITY: [How reversible is this decision — one-way door / two-way door]
MUST-HAVE CRITERIA (pass/fail — alternatives that fail these are eliminated):
| # | Criterion | Threshold | Rationale |
|---|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | [criterion] | [minimum acceptable value] | [why this is non-negotiable] |
...
ALTERNATIVES:
| # | Alternative | Description | Key Differentiator | Status |
|---|------------|-------------|-------------------|--------|
| A | [name] | [what this option is] | [why it's distinct from others] | [PASSES must-haves / ELIMINATED] |
| B | [name] | [what this option is] | [why it's distinct from others] | [PASSES / ELIMINATED] |
| C | [name] | [what this option is] | [why it's distinct from others] | [PASSES / ELIMINATED] |
...
MUST-HAVE SCREENING:
| Alternative | Criterion 1 | Criterion 2 | Criterion 3 | ... | Result |
|------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-----|--------|
| A | PASS/FAIL | PASS/FAIL | PASS/FAIL | | PROCEED/ELIMINATED |
| B | PASS/FAIL | PASS/FAIL | PASS/FAIL | | PROCEED/ELIMINATED |
...
ALTERNATIVE COMPLETENESS CHECK:
- [ ] "Do nothing" or "status quo" option included
- [ ] At least one low-risk/conservative option
- [ ] At least one innovative/aggressive option
- [ ] Hybrid or partial alternatives considered
- [ ] Alternatives are genuinely distinct (not minor variations)
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
| # | Criterion | Description | Measurement Method | Scale |
|---|-----------|-------------|-------------------|-------|
| 1 | [criterion name] | [what it measures] | [how to score it] | [1-5 or specific scale] |
...
CRITERIA CATEGORIES:
- Technical: [performance, reliability, scalability, maintainability, security]
- Cost: [development cost, operational cost, total cost of ownership]
- Schedule: [time to deliver, time to value, implementation complexity]
- Risk: [technical risk, schedule risk, organizational risk]
- Strategic: [alignment with strategy, future flexibility, competitive advantage]
Compare each criterion pair to determine relative importance:
PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX:
Which criterion is MORE important? Score: 1 = equal, 3 = moderately more, 5 = strongly more, 7 = very strongly more, 9 = extremely more
| Criterion ↓ vs → | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | Row Sum | Weight |
|-------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|---------|--------|
| C1: [name] | 1 | [score] | [score] | [score] | [score] | [score] | [sum] | [%] |
| C2: [name] | [1/score] | 1 | [score] | [score] | [score] | [score] | [sum] | [%] |
| C3: [name] | [1/score] | [1/score] | 1 | [score] | [score] | [score] | [sum] | [%] |
...
| **Total** | | | | | | | [total] | 100% |
CONSISTENCY CHECK:
- Verify no circular preferences (A > B > C > A)
- Verify weights sum to 100%
- Flag any surprising weights for stakeholder validation
WEIGHT INDEPENDENCE CHECK:
- Did you set these weights before or after you had a sense of which
alternative would win? If after, re-derive weights by asking "which
criterion matters most for the OBJECTIVE" without reference to how
alternatives score.
SCORING RUBRIC:
For each criterion, define what each score means:
| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| 5 | Excellent — fully meets or exceeds the criterion |
| 4 | Good — meets the criterion with minor gaps |
| 3 | Adequate — meets the criterion at minimum acceptable level |
| 2 | Poor — partially meets the criterion with significant gaps |
| 1 | Unacceptable — fails to meet the criterion |
DETAILED SCORING:
Criterion 1: [Name] (Weight: [X]%)
| Alternative | Score | Evidence/Rationale |
|------------|-------|-------------------|
| A | [1-5] | [specific justification] |
| B | [1-5] | [specific justification] |
| C | [1-5] | [specific justification] |
Criterion 2: [Name] (Weight: [X]%)
| Alternative | Score | Evidence/Rationale |
|------------|-------|-------------------|
| A | [1-5] | [specific justification] |
| B | [1-5] | [specific justification] |
| C | [1-5] | [specific justification] |
[...repeat for all criteria...]
WEIGHTED DECISION MATRIX:
| Criterion | Weight | Alt A Raw | Alt A Weighted | Alt B Raw | Alt B Weighted | Alt C Raw | Alt C Weighted |
|-----------|--------|-----------|---------------|-----------|---------------|-----------|---------------|
| [C1] | [W1] | [score] | [score × W1] | [score] | [score × W1] | [score] | [score × W1] |
| [C2] | [W2] | [score] | [score × W2] | [score] | [score × W2] | [score] | [score × W2] |
...
| **TOTAL** | **100%** | | **[sum]** | | **[sum]** | | **[sum]** |
| **RANK** | | | **[rank]** | | **[rank]** | | **[rank]** |
Test how robust the result is to changes in weights and scores:
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS:
WEIGHT SENSITIVITY:
For each criterion, how much would the weight need to change to alter the winner?
| Criterion | Current Weight | Break-Even Weight | Sensitivity | Impact |
|-----------|---------------|-------------------|------------|--------|
| [C1] | [current %] | [weight at which winner changes] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [which alternative would win] |
...
SCORE SENSITIVITY:
For the winning alternative's lowest-scored criteria, what if that score dropped by 1?
| Scenario | Changed Score | New Winner? | New Ranking |
|----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| [criterion X] score drops from [N] to [N-1] | [new total] | [YES — Alt B wins / NO] | [new ranking] |
...
SCENARIO ANALYSIS:
| Scenario | Weight/Score Change | Winner | Margin | Confidence |
|----------|-------------------|--------|--------|-----------|
| Base case | (none) | [Alt A] | [margin over #2] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] |
| Emphasize cost | Cost weight +10% | [winner] | [margin] | |
| Emphasize performance | Performance weight +10% | [winner] | [margin] | |
| Pessimistic for winner | Winner's uncertain scores -1 | [winner] | [margin] | |
| Optimistic for runner-up | Runner-up's uncertain scores +1 | [winner] | [margin] | |
OVERALL ROBUSTNESS: [ROBUST — winner is clear / SENSITIVE — small changes alter the result / INCONCLUSIVE — alternatives are too close to distinguish]
RECOMMENDATION: [Alternative Name]
DECISION SUMMARY:
- Winner: [Alternative] with weighted score of [X]
- Runner-up: [Alternative] with weighted score of [Y]
- Margin: [X - Y] ([percentage]%)
- Confidence: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
WHY THIS ALTERNATIVE:
- [Primary reason — strongest criterion performance]
- [Secondary reason]
- [Strategic alignment reason]
WHY NOT THE OTHERS:
| Rejected Alternative | Primary Reason for Rejection | Under What Conditions It Would Win |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------|
| [Alt B] | [key weakness] | [if criterion X were more important] |
| [Alt C] | [key weakness] | [if criterion Y were more important] |
...
RISKS OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE:
| # | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|------|-----------|--------|-----------|
| 1 | [risk] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [how to address] |
...
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
- Prerequisites: [what must be in place before implementing]
- Key milestones: [major checkpoints]
- Reversibility: [how to change course if this proves wrong]
- Monitoring: [what to watch to confirm this was the right choice]
DECISION RECORD:
- Decision made: [date or TBD]
- Decision maker: [who]
- Stakeholders consulted: [who was involved]
- Review date: [when to revisit this decision]
## TRADE STUDY: [Decision Name]
### 1. Decision Context
[Objective, scope, constraints, timeline]
### 2. Alternatives
[List of alternatives with must-have screening results]
### 3. Evaluation Criteria and Weights
[Criteria definitions, pairwise comparison, final weights]
### 4. Weighted Decision Matrix
[Scores, weighted scores, totals, ranking]
### 5. Sensitivity Analysis
[Weight sensitivity, score sensitivity, scenario analysis, robustness assessment]
### 6. Recommendation
[Selected alternative with rationale, rejected alternatives with conditions for reconsideration]
### 7. Risks and Mitigations
[Risks of selected alternative with mitigations]
### 8. Decision Record
[Who, when, review date]
Before completing:
After trade study:
/requirements to derive requirements from the selected alternative/sysarch to design architecture based on the selected approach/stakeholder to communicate the decision to affected stakeholders/fla to anticipate failure modes of the selected alternative/dcp to create decision procedures for implementation choices/conops to update operational concept based on the selection