/skill-decision-support

name: skill-decision-support
description: "Present options with trade-offs for informed decision-making — use when choosing between approaches"
disable-model-invocation: true

> **Host: Codex CLI** — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. > Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than `/octo:*` slash commands. > Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. > For host tool equivalents, see `skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md`.

Decision Support & Options Presentation

Overview

Structured approach to presenting options and alternatives with clear trade-offs, enabling informed decision-making.

**Core principle:** Understand context → Generate options → Analyze trade-offs → Present clearly → Support choice.

When to Use

**Use this skill when user:**

• Asks for options or alternatives
• Says "fix or provide options"
• Needs help deciding between approaches
• Wants to see different ways to solve a problem
• Is uncertain about best path forward

**Do NOT use for:**

• General research ("what is X?") → use flow-probe
• Implementation work → use flow-tangle
• Simple yes/no questions
• Already-decided approaches

The Process

Phase 1: Context Understanding

Step 1: Understand the Decision Point

**Decision Context:**

What needs to be decided: [the core question]
Why it matters: [impact of this decision]
Constraints: [time, resources, compatibility, etc.]
Current state: [what exists now]

Step 2: Gather Requirements

Use AskUserQuestion if needed to understand:

• Must-have requirements
• Nice-to-have features
• Deal-breakers
• Timeline constraints
• Budget/resource constraints

Phase 2: Generate Options

Step 1: Identify Viable Approaches

Generate 2-4 distinct options (not just variations):

| Option Type | When to Include | |-------------|-----------------| | **Conservative** | Low risk, proven approach | | **Moderate** | Balanced risk/reward | | **Innovative** | Higher risk, potentially better outcome | | **Minimal** | Simplest possible solution |

**Don't generate options that:**

• Violate stated constraints
• Are clearly inferior to others
• Are essentially the same with minor tweaks

Step 2: Research Each Option

For each option, understand:

• How it works
• What it requires
• What the outcome looks like
• What could go wrong

Phase 3: Trade-off Analysis

For each option, analyze:

### Option N: [Name]

**Description:**
[1-2 sentence description]

**Pros:**
- ✅ [Advantage 1]
- ✅ [Advantage 2]
- ✅ [Advantage 3]

**Cons:**
- ❌ [Disadvantage 1]
- ❌ [Disadvantage 2]
- ❌ [Disadvantage 3]

**Effort:** [Low/Medium/High]
**Risk:** [Low/Medium/High]
**Reversibility:** [Easy/Moderate/Difficult to undo]

**Best for:** [when this option makes sense]

Phase 4: Present Options

Format for Presentation

# Decision: [What needs to be decided]

**Context:** [Brief summary of why this decision is needed]


## Option 1: [Conservative/Proven Approach] ⭐ (Recommended)

**What it is:**
[Clear explanation in 1-2 sentences]

**Pros:**
- ✅ [Pro 1]
- ✅ [Pro 2]
- ✅ [Pro 3]

**Cons:**
- ❌ [Con 1]
- ❌ [Con 2]

**Implementation:**
[Brief overview of what's involved]

**Timeline:** [estimate]
**Risk Level:** Low/Medium/High


## Option 2: [Alternative Approach]

[Same structure as Option 1]


## Option 3: [Another Alternative]

[Same structure as Option 1]


## Recommendation

**I recommend Option [N]: [Name]**

**Why:**
1. [Reason 1]
2. [Reason 2]
3. [Reason 3]

**This option is best because:** [summary of key advantage relative to context]


## Quick Comparison

| Criteria | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| Effort | [level] | [level] | [level] |
| Risk | [level] | [level] | [level] |
| Reversible | [yes/no] | [yes/no] | [yes/no] |
| Timeline | [time] | [time] | [time] |
| Best for | [scenario] | [scenario] | [scenario] |


**Which option would you like to proceed with?**

Guidelines for Presentation

1. **Mark recommendation clearly** with ⭐ or "(Recommended)" 2. **Limit to 2-4 options** (too many = decision paralysis) 3. **Be honest about cons** (don't oversell any option) 4. **Make comparison easy** (use consistent structure) 5. **Support with reasoning** (explain why recommendation makes sense)

Phase 5: Support the Choice

After user chooses:

✅ **Proceeding with Option [N]: [Name]**

**Next steps:**
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
3. [Step 3]

**I'll now [begin implementation / gather more details / create plan].**

If user asks for more info on a specific option:

**Deep dive on Option [N]:**

**How it works:**
[Detailed explanation]

**Implementation steps:**
1. [Detailed step 1]
2. [Detailed step 2]
...

**Potential issues and mitigations:**
- Issue: [potential problem]
  Mitigation: [how to handle it]

**Would you like to proceed with this option?**

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: "Fix or Provide Options"

User: "The auth system is broken. Fix or provide options."

Response structure:
1. Assess: Is the fix obvious or are there choices?
2. If obvious: Present the fix + ask for confirmation
3. If choices: Present options with trade-offs

Example:

I can see the auth issue. Here are your options:

**Option 1: Quick Fix** (Recommended for immediate deployment)
- Patch the current JWT validation
- Pros: Fast, low risk
- Cons: Doesn't address underlying architecture

**Option 2: Comprehensive Refactor**
- Rebuild auth with better patterns
- Pros: Long-term solution
- Cons: Takes longer, more testing needed

**Which approach fits your timeline?**

Pattern 2: "What Are My Options"

User: "I need to add caching. What are my options?"

Response structure:
1. Understand requirements (what needs caching, scale, etc.)
2. Generate 3-4 caching options
3. Prese