decision-review
Post-decision analysis - review outcomes against predictions, identify lessons, update patterns
What this skill does
# Decision Review **Purpose:** Analyze how a past decision played out to improve future decision-making. **Announce:** "Using decision-review to analyze how this decision played out." ## When to Use Invoke this skill when: - A scheduled review date has arrived - An exit trigger has activated - Sufficient time has passed to observe outcomes - Circumstances have materially changed - You want to learn from a past decision (success or failure) - Building a track record for calibration purposes ## Process ### Step 1: Retrieve Original Decision Load the decision artifact and review what was decided. **Questions to answer:** - What was the decision? - What was the recommendation? - What were the Must-Be-True conditions? - What risks were identified? - What Exit Criteria were established? - What alternatives were rejected? ```markdown ## Original Decision Summary **Decision Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] **Decision:** [What was decided] **Recommendation at time:** [Proceed/Do Not Proceed] **Confidence at time:** [High/Medium/Low] **Must-Be-True Conditions:** 1. [Condition 1] 2. [Condition 2] 3. [Condition 3] **Identified Risks:** 1. [Risk 1] 2. [Risk 2] 3. [Risk 3] **Exit Criteria:** - [Tripwire 1] - [Tripwire 2] ``` ### Step 2: Document Outcomes Record what actually happened since the decision was made. **Outcome Assessment Questions:** - What was the actual result? - How does it compare to expectations? - What unexpected events occurred? - Which exit triggers, if any, were hit? - What's the current status? **Outcome Categories:** | Category | Description | |----------|-------------| | **Success** | Objectives achieved, decision validated | | **Partial Success** | Some objectives achieved, some missed | | **Neutral** | Neither clear success nor failure | | **Partial Failure** | Significant objectives missed | | **Failure** | Decision did not achieve intended outcomes | | **Reversed** | Decision was undone or significantly changed | ```markdown ## Actual Outcomes **Review Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] **Time Since Decision:** [duration] **Overall Outcome:** [Success/Partial Success/Neutral/Partial Failure/Failure/Reversed] **What Happened:** [Narrative description of actual events and outcomes] **Unexpected Events:** - [Event 1] - [Event 2] **Exit Triggers Hit:** - [ ] [Trigger 1] - [hit/not hit] - [ ] [Trigger 2] - [hit/not hit] **Current Status:** [Where things stand now] ``` ### Step 3: Analyze Predictions Compare predictions against reality to calibrate future judgment. **Must-Be-True Conditions Accuracy:** For each condition identified at decision time: - Did it hold true? - If not, what happened instead? - How critical was the failure? **Risk Predictions Accuracy:** For each risk identified: - Did it materialize? - Was severity/likelihood accurate? - Were mitigations effective? **Unidentified Factors:** - What important factors were not anticipated? - What risks materialized that weren't on the list? - What opportunities emerged unexpectedly? ```markdown ## Prediction Analysis ### Must-Be-True Conditions | Condition | Held True? | What Actually Happened | |-----------|------------|----------------------| | [Condition 1] | Yes/No/Partial | [Reality] | | [Condition 2] | Yes/No/Partial | [Reality] | | [Condition 3] | Yes/No/Partial | [Reality] | **Condition Accuracy:** [X of Y conditions held true] ### Risk Predictions | Risk | Materialized? | Predicted L/I | Actual L/I | Mitigation Worked? | |------|---------------|---------------|------------|-------------------| | [Risk 1] | Yes/No | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | Yes/No/Partial | | [Risk 2] | Yes/No | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | Yes/No/Partial | | [Risk 3] | Yes/No | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] / [H/M/L] | Yes/No/Partial | **Risk Prediction Accuracy:** [X of Y risks correctly assessed] ### Blind Spots Factors we didn't anticipate: 1. [Blind spot 1 - what was missed] 2. [Blind spot 2 - what was missed] ``` ### Step 4: Identify Lessons Extract actionable learning from the analysis. **What We Got Right:** - Which predictions were accurate? - Which parts of the process worked well? - What should we repeat? **What We Got Wrong:** - Which predictions failed? - Where did analysis fall short? - What should we avoid? **What We Should Do Differently:** - Process improvements for future decisions - New questions to ask - New checks to perform - Biases to watch for ```markdown ## Key Lessons ### What We Got Right - [Lesson 1] - [Lesson 2] ### What We Got Wrong - [Lesson 1] - [Lesson 2] ### Process Improvements For future similar decisions: 1. [Improvement 1] 2. [Improvement 2] 3. [Improvement 3] ### Bias Observations Biases that affected this decision: - [Bias 1 and how it manifested] - [Bias 2 and how it manifested] ``` ### Step 5: Update Patterns Document insights for use in future decisions. **Pattern Recognition:** - Does this decision fit a pattern of past successes or failures? - What decision type does this represent? - What heuristics should be updated? **Calibration Update:** - How should this affect confidence in similar future decisions? - Were we overconfident or underconfident? - What's our track record in this domain now? **Knowledge Base Updates:** - New facts to add to institutional knowledge - Updated risk assessments for similar situations - Revised assumptions about key variables ```markdown ## Pattern Updates ### Decision Type [Category of decision - e.g., vendor selection, strategic pivot, hiring] ### Updated Heuristics For similar decisions in the future: - [Heuristic 1] - [Heuristic 2] ### Calibration Adjustment - Previous confidence level: [X] - Recommended adjustment: [raise/lower/maintain] - Track record in this domain: [X successes / Y failures] ### Institutional Knowledge Add to knowledge base: - [Fact/insight 1] - [Fact/insight 2] ``` ## Output Template Generate a comprehensive review document: ```markdown # Decision Review: [Decision Name] ## Summary | Aspect | Original | Actual | |--------|----------|--------| | **Decision Date** | [YYYY-MM-DD] | - | | **Review Date** | - | [YYYY-MM-DD] | | **Time Elapsed** | - | [duration] | | **Recommendation** | [Proceed/Do Not Proceed] | - | | **Confidence** | [High/Medium/Low] | - | | **Outcome** | - | [Success/Partial/Failure] | ## Prediction Accuracy ### Must-Be-True Conditions **Accuracy:** [X/Y] conditions held true | Condition | Predicted | Actual | Match | |-----------|-----------|--------|-------| | [Condition 1] | Must hold | [Yes/No] | [check/X] | | [Condition 2] | Must hold | [Yes/No] | [check/X] | ### Risk Predictions **Accuracy:** [X/Y] risks correctly predicted | Risk | Predicted | Materialized | Severity Match | |------|-----------|--------------|----------------| | [Risk 1] | [L/I] | [Yes/No] | [check/X] | | [Risk 2] | [L/I] | [Yes/No] | [check/X] | ### Blind Spots - [Unanticipated factor 1] - [Unanticipated factor 2] ## Key Lessons ### What Worked 1. [Success factor 1] 2. [Success factor 2] ### What Didn't Work 1. [Failure factor 1] 2. [Failure factor 2] ### Process Improvements 1. [Improvement 1] 2. [Improvement 2] ## Recommendations ### For Similar Future Decisions - [Recommendation 1] - [Recommendation 2] ### Calibration Update [How this affects confidence in similar decisions] ### Follow-up Actions - [ ] [Action 1] - [ ] [Action 2] --- *Review conducted: [date]* *Reviewer: [name/role]* *Original decision: [link to decision artifact]* ``` ## Save Location Save the review document to: ``` docs/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-<decision-slug>/review-[date].md ``` Where: - `YYYY-MM-DD-<decision-slug>` matches the original decision directory - `[date]` is the review date in YYYY-MM-DD format Example: `docs/decisions/2024-03-15-vendor-selection/review-2024-09-15.md` ## Exit Criteria - Original decision artifact retrieved and summarized - Actual outcomes documented with evidence - All Must-Be-True conditions assessed - All predicted risks eva
Related in Code Review
gstack
IncludedFast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)
startup-due-diligence
IncludedLegal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
interview-master
IncludedThis skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.
fix-issue
IncludedFixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.
sf-apex
IncludedGenerates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.
swift-development
IncludedComprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.