/decision-memo

name: decision-memo
description: Writes a concise, human-readable decision brief summarizing the full validation analysis — including score, verdict, RAT experiment, pre-mortem, and tier-appropriate next actions. The document a founder actually acts on.

<!-- version: 0.2.0 | outputs: memory/ideas/<slug>/decision_memo.md -->

Skill: decision-memo

Purpose

After all analysis is complete, produce a document the user can actually act on. This is not a report — it is a **decision brief**. It surfaces the most important signals, names the riskiest assumption, and gives a concrete next action calibrated to the founder's tier. A good decision memo makes the reader feel slightly uncomfortable — that means it's honest.

Input

• Idea slug
• `memory/ideas/<slug>/scores.json` (required — includes RAT)
• `memory/ideas/<slug>/weaknesses.json` (if available)
• `memory/ideas/<slug>/pivot_options.json` (if available and verdict is "pivot")
• All other available dimension files in `memory/ideas/<slug>/`
• `memory/user_profile.md` (for tier-appropriate recommendations)

Writing Principles

The memo must be **scannable in under 2 minutes**. Follow these rules:

1. **No hedging.** "This might work if…" is banned. State the verdict and own it. 2. **Evidence over opinion.** Every strength and risk must cite a specific data point from a dimension file (k-factor, LTV:CAC ratio, D30 retention, WTP range, etc.). 3. **Asymmetric emphasis on risks.** Humans overweight strengths and underweight risks. The memo corrects for this by giving risks more detail than strengths. 4. **One clear next action.** Not three options — one. The alternative path exists only as a contingency. 5. **Respect the founder's tier.** Don't tell a beginner to "optimize your Meta ads funnel." Don't tell a growth-tier founder to "watch some TikTok tutorials."

Formatting Constraints

| Section | Max length | Purpose | |---|---|---| | Verdict line | 1 sentence | Instant signal | | Score + confidence | 1 line | Quantitative anchor | | Validation watermark | 1–2 lines | Trust calibration (only if confidence < high) | | Top 3 Strengths | 1 sentence each, with one data point | What's working | | Top 3 Risks | 2 sentences each: the risk + what happens if ignored | What kills it | | Riskiest Assumption | 3–5 sentences | The one thing to test before building anything | | Pre-mortem | 3 bullet points | Failure imagination exercise | | Recommended Next Step | 2–4 sentences with specifics | What to do this week | | Kill criteria | 1–2 sentences | When to walk away | | Alternative Path | 1–2 sentences | Plan B |

Total memo length: **~400–600 words**. If it's longer, cut. Brevity is a feature.

Process

1. Load `scores.json` and all available dimension files. 2. Check `score_confidence`. If "low", compose a validation watermark (see below). 3. Identify the 3 highest-scoring dimensions → strengths. For each, pull one concrete data point from the source file (e.g., "k-factor estimated at 0.6" not "good viral potential"). 4. Identify the 3 lowest-scoring dimensions → risks. For each, describe what goes wrong if ignored. If `weaknesses.json` exists, use its `root_cause_type` and `failure_mode` to add specificity. 5. Extract the RAT from `scores.json.riskiest_assumption_test`. Frame it as the one question to answer before writing a line of code. 6. Run a **pre-mortem**: assume the idea failed 12 months from now. Write 3 most likely causes of death based on the risk profile. 7. Compose the recommended next step:

• If verdict = **pursue**: the next step is to build a scoped MVP (define what "scoped" means for this idea).
• If verdict = **test**: the next step IS the RAT experiment from `scores.json`. Restate it with concrete specifics (channel, spend, threshold, timeline).
• If verdict = **pivot**: the next step is the recommended pivot from `pivot_options.json` (if available) or running the pivot-engine skill.
• If verdict = **drop**: the next step is to archive and move on. Name one thing learned from the analysis that applies to future ideas.

8. Define **kill criteria**: the specific outcome that means "stop and move on." This is the inverse of the RAT pass threshold. 9. Write the alternative path — what to do if the recommended step fails or the kill criteria is met. 10. Write the memo following the template below.

Validation Watermark

If `score_confidence` from `scores.json` is not "high", insert a watermark immediately after the score line:

| Confidence | Watermark | |---|---| | **medium** | "This score is based on incomplete data. {list missing dimensions}. Run these analyses before making a build/no-build decision." | | **low** | "LOW CONFIDENCE — Only {N} of 7 dimensions scored. This verdict is directional, not conclusive. Required before acting: {list mandatory missing analyses}." |

Pre-mortem Method

The pre-mortem is a proven debiasing technique (Klein, 2007). It forces the founder to imagine failure before committing resources.

Instructions: 1. Assume the idea launched and failed within 12 months. 2. Working backward from the risk profile and killer dimensions, write the 3 most probable causes of death. 3. Each cause must be specific and tied to a scored dimension — not generic ("ran out of money" is too vague; "CAC exceeded LTV by 4x because TikTok organic reach declined and no paid channel was viable under $500/mo" is useful).

Output

Write to `memory/ideas/<slug>/decision_memo.md`:

---
idea_slug: ""
verdict: "pursue | test | pivot | drop"
final_score: 0
score_confidence: "high | medium | low"
created_at: ""
---

# Decision Memo: <Idea Name>

## Verdict: <PURSUE / TEST / PIVOT / DROP>

**Score: X/100** | Confidence: <high / medium / low>

<Validation watermark — only if confidence is medium or low>

---

## Why This Score

<2–3 sentences explaining what the score means in plain language. Not a recap of methodology — a statement of what the analysis revealed about this idea's viabi