/ase-meta-evaluate

name: ase-meta-evaluate
argument-hint: "[--help|-h] <request>"
description: >
    Evaluate alternatives through a weighted multi-criteria decision
    matrix. Use when the user calls for the *evaluation* of
    *alternatives*, wants to *compare* things, or asks what the best is
    from a list of choices.
user-invocable: true
disable-model-invocation: false
effort: high

@${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-control.md @${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-skill.md @${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-getopt.md

<purpose name="ase-meta-evaluate"> Evaluate Alternatives </purpose>

<expand name="getopt" arg1="ase-meta-evaluate"> $ARGUMENTS </expand>

<objective> *Evaluate* *alternatives* through a weighted multi-*criteria* decision matrix. </objective>

<flow> 1. <step id="STEP 1: Determine Reason">

• From the <request><getopt-arguments/></request>, try to derive the overall

reason <reason/> for the evaluation. If no such reason can be derived, assume <reason>generic comparison</reason>.

• Output the determined reason with just the following <template/>

and do not output anything else:

<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-secondary/> **REASON**: *<reason/>* </template> </step>

2. <step id="STEP 2: Determine Alternatives">

• From the <request><getopt-arguments/></request> derive the two or more

alternatives <alternative-K/> (K=1-N) the user wants to be evaluated. Do not output anything.

• If fewer than two alternatives could be derived (N<2), output the

following <template/> and *stop the entire flow* immediately without executing any further steps:

<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-signal/> **ERROR: INSUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES**: at least two are required for a comparison! </template>

• For each alternative <alternative-K/> (K=1-N), decide whether

you have all necessary information at hand to give it the proper, unique, short, and *concise name* <alternative-K/>. If you are unsure, use the `ase-meta-search` skill (at most one invocation per alternative, drawing from the *skill-wide shared budget* of at most 8 `ase-meta-search` invocations in total across STEP 2 and STEP 3 combined) to find out more and adjust the name <alternative-K/>.

If still unsure after the shared budget is exhausted, pick the best-guess concise name and proceed. Do not output anything.

• For each alternative <alternative-K/> (K=1-N), decide which *one*

of *USP* (Unique Selling Point -- what makes it unique), *Crux* (what you should notice), or *Gotcha* (what you should not stumble over) is its single most distinguishing perspective, and remember this as an <info-K/> (K=1-N) formatted like `<type/>: <hint/>` where <type/> is one of `USP`, `Crux`, or `Gotcha` and <hint/> is a 1-6 word hint. Do not output anything.

• For the set of alternatives, decide what the 1-6 word long

name of the *class of alternatives* <class-of-alternatives/> is. Do not output anything.

• For each alternative <alternative-K/> (K=1-N), decide whether

it is a genuine member of <class-of-alternatives/>. If any <alternative-K/> is *not* a member (i.e. the alternatives are not mutually comparable within a single class), output the following <template/> (repeating the `⚑` line once per non-member alternative, i.e. once for each <alternative-K/> for which the membership decision was negative) and *stop the entire flow* immediately without executing any further steps:

<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-signal/> **ERROR: INCOMPARABLE ALTERNATIVES**: *<class-of-alternatives/>*

⚑ **<alternative-K/>** (*member of a different class*) </template>

• Output the determined, individual alternatives as a Markdown

*table* with just the following <template/> and do not output anything else:

<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-normal/> **ALTERNATIVES**: *<class-of-alternatives/>*

| ⚑ *Alternative* | ⚖ *Hint* | | :--------------------- | :-------- | | ⚑ **<alternative-1/>** | <info-1/> | [...alternatives K=2-(N-1) for N>2...] | ⚑ **<alternative-N/>** | <info-N/> | </template> </step>

3. <step id="STEP 3: Derive Criteria">

• From the <request><getopt-arguments/></request>, try to derive the criteria

<criteria-L/> (L=1-M) for the evaluation. Do not output anything.

• For each criterion <criteria-L/> (L=1-M), decide on its <weight-L/>

from the value set { 4.00, 2.00, 1.00, 0.50, 0.25 } (from most important, over normal, to less important). Do not output anything.

• Ensure the final number of criteria is always within the range of

minimum 8 and maximum 12: if fewer than 8 criteria were requested, use the set of alternatives to decide on additional criteria which potentially allow best to triage the alternatives, take the <reason/> into account, and use the `ase-meta-search` skill (drawing from the *skill-wide shared budget* of at most 8 `ase-meta-search` invocations in total across STEP 2 and STEP 3 combined) to find out about the potentially still missing criteria and assign their <weight-L/>.

If still under 8 criteria after the shared budget is exhausted, fill the remaining slots from existing knowledge without further searches; if more than 12 criteria were requested, drop the criteria with the smallest <weight-L/> until 12 remain. Do not output anything.

• To prevent a single high-weight criterion from dominating the

weighted sum (the weight set is geometric ×2 while the evaluation Likert scale is linear), assign weight 4.00 to *at least one* and *