菜单
Runs a weighted multi-criteria analysis — making explicit what matters, how much, and how each option performs against it. Triggers: 'weighted decision matrix', 'multi-criteria analysis', 'help me choose between', 'compare these options', 'decision matrix'.
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
Master orchestration skill. Takes any situation in plain English, identifies the underlying goal, designs a multi-skill reasoning workflow, and executes it sequentially — feeding each skill's output into the next. Use when you say 'help me think through this', 'I need to figure out what to do', 'where do I start', or any time you want structured thinking applied end-to-end rather than routed to a single tool.
Tests whether the parts of something form a unified whole — finding the jarring inconsistencies that accumulate when different contributors work without a shared vision. TRIGGERS: 'coherence check', 'does this feel unified', 'something feels off', 'inconsistent', 'check the whole', 'does this hang together'.
Tests whether a solution is more complex than it needs to be — distinguishing necessary complexity from accidental complexity that accreted over time. TRIGGERS: 'elegance test', 'is this too complex', 'over-engineered', 'is there a simpler way', 'does this feel right'.
Identifies the underlying formal pattern at work — because most successful designs, arguments, and solutions share deep structural patterns, and naming the pattern unlocks the playbook. TRIGGERS: 'what pattern is this', 'pattern recognition', 'why does this work', 'identify the form', 'what structure is at play', 'what archetype is this'.
Finds the simpler version while preserving what matters — not arbitrary reduction, but finding the core and discarding what is not it. TRIGGERS: 'find the simple version', 'simplify this', 'what's the essence', 'less but better', 'strip it back', 'what could we remove'.
Entry point for the aesthetic toolkit. Routes to the right aesthetic skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'aesthetic', 'check the design', 'does this feel right', 'is this elegant', 'is this too complex', 'what pattern is this', 'find the simpler version', or want an aesthetic lens applied without knowing which specific tool fits.
| name | s4h-decision-criteria-weighting |
| description | Runs a weighted multi-criteria analysis — making explicit what matters, how much, and how each option performs against it. Triggers: 'weighted decision matrix', 'multi-criteria analysis', 'help me choose between', 'compare these options', 'decision matrix'. |
Intuitive decisions fail when too many criteria are in play and their relative importance isn't made explicit. This skill forces that explicitness. The goal is not to replace judgment — it is to make the judgment visible enough to inspect, challenge, and defend.
Step 1: State the Decision and List Real Options Name the decision. List the actual options being considered — not aspirational ones. If an option isn't genuinely available, remove it before it contaminates the analysis.
Framing check: Confirm the decision and its intended outcome before continuing. State what you've identified — the specific decision being made and the options on the table — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Identify 4-8 Criteria Name the criteria that define a good outcome for this specific decision. Criteria should be independent (not measuring the same thing twice), observable (you can score against them), and genuinely relevant (removing one would change the analysis).
Before narrowing: Show the complete generated set of candidate criteria to the user first. Use AskUserQuestion:
Step 3: Weight the Criteria Distribute exactly 100 points across the criteria. This forces trade-offs — you cannot weight everything highly. If everything matters equally, the distribution reveals a failure to think through what actually matters most.
Step 4: Score Each Option Score each option on each criterion from 1 to 5. Do this before calculating totals — the sequence matters. Scoring after you see where things are headed is reverse-engineering to confirm a preference, which defeats the exercise.
Step 5: Calculate Weighted Scores Weighted score = sum of (weight × score) for each criterion. Calculate for all options.
Step 6: Sense-Check If the math agrees with your intuition, good. If it disagrees, investigate: is the intuition catching something the criteria missed, or is the intuition rationalising a preference? Either is possible. Don't dismiss either.
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Decision: [Statement]
Criteria and weights:
| Criterion | Weight (total = 100) |
|---|---|
Scored matrix:
| Option | [Criterion 1] (×W) | [Criterion 2] (×W) | ... | Weighted Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sense-check:
[Does the result match intuition? If not — what is the intuition picking up that the matrix doesn't capture, or what is the intuition getting wrong?]
Recommendation:
[Option name] — [one sentence rationale]
The value of this exercise is in the weighting step, not the scoring. Most decision disagreements are disagreements about what matters, not about how options perform. Making weights explicit moves the conversation to the right place.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis — Stress-test the winning option before committing/s4h-decision-reversibility-analysis — Assess how reversible the top option is/s4h-ethics-check — Check whether the top option is ethically sound