菜单
Compare options with weighted scoring, pros and cons, pre-mortems, opportunity costs, and ICE prioritization. Use when a user wants to reason through a choice, expose assumptions, or rank alternatives.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
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。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/iflytek/skillhub --skill decision-matrix命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | decision-matrix |
| description | Compare options with weighted scoring, pros and cons, pre-mortems, opportunity costs, and ICE prioritization. Use when a user wants to reason through a choice, expose assumptions, or rank alternatives. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| license | MIT |
Apply a transparent framework to compare options, expose trade-offs, and identify what information could change a choice.
Treat every score as a transparent expression of the user's stated preferences, not as objective truth. Clearly label estimates and assumptions, and never invent missing costs, probabilities, constraints, or preferences.
For medical, legal, financial, safety-critical, or other high-impact decisions, use the frameworks only to organize questions and trade-offs. Do not present the highest score as professional advice or a final decision. Encourage the user to verify material facts and consult an appropriately qualified professional.
Best for: Quick decisions with low-to-moderate stakes
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| 1 | Draw two columns: PROS and CONS |
| 2 | List every reason for and against — no filtering |
| 3 | Weigh each item (not all pros are equal). Assign +1 to +5 for pros, -1 to -5 for cons |
| 4 | Sum the scores, then inspect the strongest items, uncertainty, and any non-negotiables |
Guardrail: Pros/cons alone miss hidden assumptions. Always follow with: "What am I not considering?"
Best for: Comparing multiple options against multiple criteria
| Criteria | Weight (1-5) | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|------------------------|-------------|----------|----------|----------|
| Cost | 4 | 8/10 | 6/10 | 9/10 |
| Time to Market | 3 | 7/10 | 9/10 | 5/10 |
| Strategic Fit | 5 | 9/10 | 4/10 | 7/10 |
| Team Capacity | 2 | 6/10 | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| **Weighted Total** | | 110 | 87 | 94 |
Steps:
Best for: High-stakes decisions where risk mitigation is critical
"It's 12 months from now and our decision has failed spectacularly. How did it happen?"
| Step | Technique |
|---|---|
| 1 | Assume the decision was made and led to disaster |
| 2 | Fast-forward and write the "post-mortem" — what went wrong? |
| 3 | Generate 5-10 plausible failure modes |
| 4 | For each failure, ask: "What could prevent this?" |
| 5 | Incorporate those safeguards into the decision |
Use this to surface plausible failure modes that an ordinary comparison may miss. Do not treat an imagined failure as a prediction.
Best for: Deciding between two good options (where saying yes to A means saying no to B)
| Frame | Question |
|---|---|
| Cost of yes | What do I give up by choosing this? |
| Cost of no | What do I give up by not choosing this? |
| Regret test | If I look back in 5 years, which "no" would I regret more? |
| Opportunity comparison | If Option A didn't exist, would I choose Option B? |
Use the answers as discussion prompts, not an automatic selection rule.
Best for: Prioritizing many options quickly (features, ideas, experiments)
| Criterion | Scale | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Impact | 1-10 | How significant will the result be if successful? |
| Confidence | 1-10 | How sure are we about the expected outcome? |
| Ease | 1-10 | How easy/simple is this to execute? |
Formula: ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease
Sort by score to create a shortlist. Check dependencies, risk, and confidence before selecting work, and re-score when new data emerges.
Best for: Emotional or high-stakes personal decisions
| Time Horizon | Question |
|---|---|
| 10 minutes | How will I feel about this decision in 10 minutes? |
| 10 months | How will I feel about it in 10 months? |
| 10 years | How will I feel about it in 10 years? |
Purpose: Shifts perspective from short-term emotion to long-term impact. If the horizons conflict, explain the conflict instead of automatically favoring one horizon.
| Phrase | Action |
|---|---|
| "Help me decide between..." | Starts a structured comparison of options |
| "Pros and cons of..." | Generates a weighted pros/cons table |
| "Should I [X] or [Y]?" | Runs a decision matrix or opportunity cost analysis |
| "What am I not considering?" | Surfaces blind spots and hidden assumptions |
| "Run a pre-mortem on..." | Scenarios worst-case outcomes to de-risk the decision |
| "Prioritize these for me..." | Uses ICE or weighted scoring to rank options |
| "Help me think this through..." | Combines frameworks layered for clarity |
A fuzzy question gets a fuzzy answer. Be specific:
| Decision Type | Recommended Framework |
|---|---|
| Low stakes, 2 options | Pros & Cons (weighted) |
| Multiple options, many criteria | Weighted Decision Matrix |
| High risk, irreversible | Pre-mortem |
| Scarcity (time/money focus) | Opportunity Cost Frame |
| Prioritizing a long list | ICE Score |
| Emotional/personal | 10/10/10 Rule |
Gather:
Ask for critical missing information when it could change the outcome. Otherwise, proceed with clearly labeled assumptions and show how changing them affects the result.
Run the framework step by step. Document scores, weights, and reasoning.
| Bias | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Confirmation bias | Actively list reasons against your preferred option first |
| Recency bias | Consider decisions from 6+ months ago — does this feel different? |
| Sunk cost | "If I had no prior investment in this, would I still choose it?" |
| Status quo bias | "If this weren't the default, would I pick it?" |
After the decision plays out, revisit your framework. Did your weights reflect reality? Did you miss a criterion? Retrospect improves future decisions.
Input: "Should I take Client A ($5k, urgent, boring) or Client B ($3k, flexible, exciting project)?"
Process: Weighted Decision Matrix
Criteria Weight Client A Client B Income 4 9 (36) 5 (20) Enjoyment 3 3 (9) 9 (27) Time Pressure 2 3 (6) 9 (18) Portfolio Value 4 4 (16) 9 (36) Total 67 101 Result: Under these stated weights and scores, Client B leads because portfolio value and enjoyment outweigh the income gap. Verify workload, payment risk, and any non-negotiables before choosing.
Input: "Should I prioritize building a mobile app or improving onboarding?"
Process: ICE + Pre-mortem
ICE:
- Mobile App: Impact 8, Confidence 4, Ease 2 → ICE = 64
- Onboarding: Impact 6, Confidence 8, Ease 8 → ICE = 384
Pre-mortem on mobile app decision: "We built the app but no one used it because onboarding was broken." → Clear signal to fix onboarding first.