meta-decision-analysis
Apply structured decision analysis using decision matrices, decision trees, expected value, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Use this skill when the user faces a complex decision with multiple options and criteria, needs to compare alternatives objectively, quantify risk vs reward, or facilitate group decisions — even if they say 'which option should we choose', 'help me decide', 'how do we compare these options', or 'what's the expected outcome'.
pinned to #4e7f4f8updated last month
Ask your AI client: “install skills/meta-decision-analysis”.
Requires the metahub MCP server installed in your client. Set up MCP.
mh install skills/meta-decision-analysismetahub onboarded this repo on the author's behalf.
If you own github.com/asgard-ai-platform/skills on GitHub, claim the listing to take over publishing. Your claim preserves the existing eval history and badges; only the curator label is replaced with verified-publisher on your next publish.
Stars
225
Last commit
last month
Latest release
published
- #ai-agent
- #anthropic
- #claude
- #claude-agent-skills
- #claude-code
- #coding-agent
- #knowledge-base
- #mcp
- #methodology
- #open-source
- #prompt-engineering
- #skills
- #taiwan
Automated checks the publisher passed at publish time — structure, docs, safety, and whether the artifact behaves as claimed.4e7f4f8· last month
Behavioral checks ran but aren't published for this artifact; the static checks above ran at publish time.
Documentation
8 passed1 warningHomepage or repository declaredwarn
No homepage or repository declared.
Add a "homepage" or "repository" field to SKILL.md.
Description quality
68 words · 463 chars — "Apply structured decision analysis using decision matrices, decision trees, expe…"
README is present and substantial
33,936 chars · 20 sections · 3 code blocks
Tags / topics declared
13 total — ai-agent, anthropic, claude, claude-agent-skills, claude-code, coding-agent (+7)
README has usage / example sections
no labeled section but 3 code blocks document usage
Homepage / docs URL declared
https://vault.asgard-ai.com/skills/
Description is substantive
Description is 68 words.
Documentation present and substantive
Documentation present (SKILL.md, 480 words).
Documentation shows usage
Documentation includes 2 code examples.
Release history
1- releasecurrent4e7f4f8warnlast month
Contents
Framework
IRON LAW: Make Criteria and Weights Explicit BEFORE Evaluating Options
Choosing criteria after seeing the options lets bias sneak in — you
unconsciously weight criteria that favor your preferred option.
Define criteria, assign weights, THEN score options.
Decision Matrix (Weighted Scoring)
- List alternatives (3-6 options including "do nothing")
- Define criteria (4-8 factors that matter)
- Weight criteria (must sum to 100%)
- Score each option per criterion (1-5 or 1-10)
- Calculate weighted total = Σ(score × weight)
- Sensitivity check: Does the winner change if you adjust the top-weighted criterion?
Decision Tree (Sequential Decisions Under Uncertainty)
For decisions with uncertainty and sequential steps:
- Map decision nodes (squares) and chance nodes (circles)
- Assign probabilities to chance outcomes (must sum to 1.0)
- Assign payoffs to terminal nodes
- Calculate Expected Value = Σ(probability × payoff)
- Choose the branch with highest EV (or best risk-adjusted outcome)
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
For complex decisions with competing stakeholder priorities:
- Each stakeholder defines their criteria and weights independently
- Aggregate into a combined weighted matrix
- Identify where stakeholders agree (easy decisions) and disagree (requires negotiation)
Output Format
# Decision Analysis: {Decision}
## Alternatives
1. {Option A}
2. {Option B}
3. {Option C}
## Decision Matrix
| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| {criterion 1} | {X%} | {1-5} | {1-5} | {1-5} |
| **Weighted Total** | 100% | **{total}** | **{total}** | **{total}** |
## Sensitivity Analysis
- If {criterion} weight changes from X% to Y%, winner changes from {A} to {B}
## Recommendation
{Winner with rationale and key trade-offs acknowledged}
Gotchas
- "Do nothing" is always an option: Include it as a baseline. Sometimes the best decision is to wait.
- Scores are subjective: A score of "4" from one person ≠ "4" from another. Calibrate by defining what each score means before scoring.
- Expected value ignores risk preference: EV of $50 (certain) vs EV of $50 (50% chance of $0, 50% chance of $100) are equal by EV but feel very different. For high-stakes decisions, use risk-adjusted metrics.
- Analysis paralysis: Decision analysis should accelerate decisions, not delay them. Set a time limit for the analysis.
References
- For decision tree software tools, see
references/decision-tools.md
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first.
Related
Verification Before Completion
Evidence before assertions, always
Writing Plans
Turn specs into phased implementation plans
Test-Driven Development
Red → green → refactor discipline for any feature or bugfix
mh install skills/meta-decision-analysis