Best for
- Asks for options or alternatives
- Says "fix or provide options"
- Needs help deciding between approaches
nyldn/claude-octopus/skills/skill-decision-support/SKILL.md
Present options with trade-offs for informed decision-making — use when choosing between approaches
Decision brief
Present options with trade-offs for informed decision-making — use when choosing between approaches
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/nyldn/claude-octopus --skill "skills/skill-decision-support"Inspect the Agent Skill "skill-decision-support" from https://github.com/nyldn/claude-octopus/blob/bc76e7c8248c93cfc4ba621ac5421077710777d0/skills/skill-decision-support/SKILL.md at commit bc76e7c8248c93cfc4ba621ac5421077710777d0. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
Use AskUserQuestion if needed to understand: - Must-have requirements - Nice-to-have features - Deal-breakers - Timeline constraints - Budget/resource constraints
Use AskUserQuestion if needed to understand: - Must-have requirements - Nice-to-have features - Deal-breakers - Timeline constraints - Budget/resource constraints
Review the “Step 1: Understand the Decision Point” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Use AskUserQuestion if needed to understand: - Must-have requirements - Nice-to-have features - Deal-breakers - Timeline constraints - Budget/resource constraints
Generate 2-4 distinct options (not just variations):
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 90/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 4,000 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
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, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
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.
Use this skill when user:
Do NOT use for:
**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]
Use AskUserQuestion if needed to understand:
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:
For each option, understand:
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]
# 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?**
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?**
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?**
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. Present with trade-offs
4. Recommend based on their context
Example:
For caching your API responses, here are the main options:
**Option 1: In-Memory Cache (Node-cache)** ⭐
- Best for: Single-server setup
- Pros: Simple, fast, no external dependencies
- Cons: Lost on restart, doesn't scale across servers
**Option 2: Redis**
- Best for: Multi-server or persistence needed
- Pros: Persistent, distributed, feature-rich
- Cons: Requires Redis server, more complex
**Option 3: CDN Caching (Cloudflare/Fastly)**
- Best for: Static/semi-static content
- Pros: Global distribution, handles scale
- Cons: Less control, costs, public content only
**Based on your single-server setup, Option 1 is recommended.**
Which would you like to use?
User: "Should I use TypeScript or stick with JavaScript? Help me decide."
Response structure:
1. Clarify decision factors (team size, project scope, timeline)
2. Present structured comparison
3. Make recommendation based on their specific context
4. Support whatever they choose
Example:
Let me help you decide between TypeScript and JavaScript.
**TypeScript:**
Pros: Type safety, better tooling, catches errors early
Cons: Learning curve, build step, more setup
Best for: Larger teams, long-term projects, complex domains
**JavaScript:**
Pros: Simpler, no build step, familiar to all devs
Cons: Runtime errors, less IDE support, harder to refactor
Best for: Small projects, prototypes, simple applications
**For your [context]:** I recommend TypeScript because [reason].
Would you like to proceed with TypeScript, or would JavaScript be better for your needs?
Need to research options thoroughly?
→ Use flow-probe to gather information
→ Use skill-decision-support to present findings as options
User chose an option?
→ Use flow-tangle to implement the chosen approach
Bug could be fixed multiple ways?
→ Use skill-decision-support to present fix options
→ Use skill-debug to implement chosen fix systematically
Ask about constraints:
Before presenting options, I need to understand:
- Timeline: How urgent is this?
- Resources: What's available (team size, budget, infrastructure)?
- Risk tolerance: Is this production-critical or experimental?
- Reversibility: Must this decision be reversible?
Good:
**Timeline:**
- Option 1: 2-3 hours
- Option 2: 1-2 days
- Option 3: 1 week
Poor:
**Timeline:**
- Option 1: Quick
- Option 2: A while
- Option 3: Longer
**Option 2: Microservices Architecture**
⚠️ **Unknown:** Migration effort could be 2-4 weeks depending on current coupling.
Would need to audit codebase to give accurate estimate.
Always include:
**Not satisfied with these options?**
I can also:
- Research more alternatives
- Combine aspects of multiple options
- Deep-dive on any specific approach
- Prototype a solution to test viability
| Action | Why It's Wrong |
|---|---|
| Only present one "option" | That's not a choice |
| Present 8+ options | Decision paralysis |
| Hide significant cons | User can't make informed choice |
| Recommend without reasoning | User can't evaluate recommendation |
| Ignore stated constraints | Wasting user's time |
| Present obviously bad options as viable | Undermines trust |
| User Request | Action |
|---|---|
| "fix or provide options" | Assess if fix obvious → If yes: present fix, if no: present options |
| "what are my options" | Understand context → Generate 2-4 options → Present with trade-offs |
| "help me decide" | Clarify decision factors → Compare approaches → Recommend with reasoning |
| "show alternatives" | Generate alternatives → Analyze pros/cons → Present structured comparison |
Decision support → Clear options + Honest trade-offs + Reasoned recommendation
Otherwise → Confusion + Poor decisions + Regret
Understand context. Present real choices. Support with reasoning. Respect their decision.
Frequently asked questions
Present options with trade-offs for informed decision-making — use when choosing between approaches
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/nyldn/claude-octopus --skill "skills/skill-decision-support". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
Alternatives
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist
JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills
Suede-owned experimentation discipline for hypotheses, sample sizing, test duration, significance, and repeatable experiment programs. Use when comparing variants, deciding whether a result is reliable, or building an experiment backlog and cadence. NOT FOR: analytics instrumentation (use suede-analytics), post-click conversion diagnosis (use suede-site-alchemy), or writing the variant copy itself (use suede-copy).
tenequm/skills
Decision validation and thinking frameworks for startup founders. Use when you need to pressure-test a decision, validate your next steps, think through strategic options, or sanity-check your approach. Triggers on phrases like "should I", "help me think through", "is this the right move", "validate my thinking", "what am I missing". Covers fundraising, customer development, runway management, prioritization, and crypto/web3 founder challenges.