Decision Discipline Framework

Decision Discipline

by HoangNguyen0403 · MIT license · ★ 569 on GitHub

Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with SNC-sized depth, said-vs-assumed write-back, an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review. Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature,…

---
name: common-decision-discipline
description: Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with SNC-sized depth, said-vs-assumed write-back, an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review. Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session.
guardrail: true
metadata:
  triggers:
    files: []
    keywords:
      - decision brief
      - delivery contract
      - compare approaches
      - evidence ledger
      - approval state
      - option trade-offs
      - shape a direction
---

# Decision Discipline

Overview

Trustworthy decisions are sized to the work, grounded in evidence, and approved on the record.

Manual install (npx, ZIP)

Claude Codenpx skills add HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill common-decision-discipline -g -a claude-code

Claude Code (degit)

npx degit HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/skills/common/common-decision-discipline#develop ~/.claude/skills/common-decision-discipline

Claude.ai / desktopZip the folder and upload it under Settings → Capabilities → Skills.

Codex, Cursor, other agentsPoint them at SKILL.md. The other files are plain text.

Connects with Agent Alley MCP · agentalley.io/mcp

Files included

SKILL.md4.0 KB

Read SKILL.md here

HoangNguyen0403/develop1 file shown

SKILL.md4.0 KB

Browse every file on GitHub↗

SKILL.md

Show the full text90 lines

common-decision-discipline/SKILL.md90 lines · 4.0 KB

PreviewCode

Outline

RawView on GitHub

Decision Discipline

Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)

Trustworthy decisions are sized to the work, grounded in evidence, and approved on the record.

1. Size The Work

SNC tier	Depth	Artifact
`tier=low` (0-2)	Quick	Contract in chat, no file; `approval` in the Handoff Payload
`tier=medium` (3-4)	Standard	Core brief file
`tier=high` (5-6)	Deep	Full brief; decompose multi-subsystem ideas first; optional `specialist-architecture-guard` review

Score with common-task-complexity-routing; label as inference until scouted. The tier only rises once work starts.
A symptom without a root cause routes to dev-fix; never compare fixes for an undiagnosed bug.

2. Shared Understanding

Draft first, then write back two lists: You said and I assumed. Allow one correction round.
Skip the write-back when outcome, constraints, non-goals, and acceptance criteria are already stated; confirm in one line.
Reuse an accepted contract; never reopen it.

3. Evidence Ledger

Tag every feasibility, AS-IS, or current-behavior claim: confirmed(<path>), assumed, or unknown.
Read the smallest useful set of code, tests, docs, and existing docs/brd|prd|srs before calling an option feasible.
Resolve what evidence can settle; label only what stays unknowable. Format: references/evidence-ledger.md.

4. Questions

Ask only when the answer changes the result, safety boundary, or public contract.
Max 3 per round, each with a recommended default and 2-3 options.
Never re-ask a settled fact. Never ask the operator to re-authorize approved work.
For operator_profile=business, every question is answerable by "go with your suggestion".

5. Options

0-3 options, only when a real choice exists. A single viable path is stated as the path, not padded.
Each option card names its load-bearing assumption, first failure condition, worst plausible case, and cost to abandon (references/option-card.md).
Recommend the smallest option that satisfies the contract. When a critical assumption is unresolved, recommend the option cheapest to abandon.
Cut unrequested scope; keep all requested scope.

6. Approval State

approval: pending | approved(<who>, <YYYY-MM-DD>) | assumed-autonomous.
Interactive: end with "Reply ok or corrections". An ok approves only the artifact presented.
Autonomous or channel mode without an interactive reply channel: set assumed-autonomous and continue; tier=high still blocks pending explicit human sign-off.

7. Self-Review Before Handoff

Placeholders: TBD, TODO, empty sections.
Contradictions between sections.
Scope: one plan, or needs splitting.
Ambiguity: a requirement with two readings; pick one and state it.

Red Flags

Stop when thinking: "too simple to need a brief", "they said implement, so skip intake", "it's a bug, pick a fix", "list three options to look thorough", "ask again to be safe", "they approved the idea, so the plan is approved". Each is a rationalization, not a reason.

Anti-Patterns

No unlabeled claims: every AS-IS or feasibility statement carries an evidence tag.
No padded options: never invent alternatives to reach three.
No silent approval: a brief without approval is incomplete.
No reopened decisions: settled facts are carried forward, not re-asked.

References

1	---
2	name: common-decision-discipline
3	description: Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with SNC-sized depth, said-vs-assumed write-back, an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review. Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session.
4	guardrail: true
5	metadata:
6	triggers:
7	files: []
8	keywords:
9	- decision brief
10	- delivery contract
11	- compare approaches
12	- evidence ledger
13	- approval state
14	- option trade-offs
15	- shape a direction
16	---
17
18	# Decision Discipline
19
20	## Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)
21
22	Trustworthy decisions are sized to the work, grounded in evidence, and approved on the record.
23
24	## 1. Size The Work
25
26	\| SNC tier \| Depth \| Artifact \|
27	\| --- \| --- \| --- \|
28	\| `tier=low` (0-2) \| Quick \| Contract in chat, no file; `approval` in the Handoff Payload \|
29	\| `tier=medium` (3-4) \| Standard \| Core brief file \|
30	\| `tier=high` (5-6) \| Deep \| Full brief; decompose multi-subsystem ideas first; optional `specialist-architecture-guard` review \|
31
32	- Score with `common-task-complexity-routing`; label as inference until scouted. The tier only rises once work starts.
33	- A symptom without a root cause routes to `dev-fix`; never compare fixes for an undiagnosed bug.
34
35	## 2. Shared Understanding
36
37	- Draft first, then write back two lists: You said and I assumed. Allow one correction round.
38	- Skip the write-back when outcome, constraints, non-goals, and acceptance criteria are already stated; confirm in one line.
39	- Reuse an accepted contract; never reopen it.
40
41	## 3. Evidence Ledger
42
43	- Tag every feasibility, AS-IS, or current-behavior claim: `confirmed(<path>)`, `assumed`, or `unknown`.
44	- Read the smallest useful set of code, tests, docs, and existing `docs/brd\|prd\|srs` before calling an option feasible.
45	- Resolve what evidence can settle; label only what stays unknowable. Format: `references/evidence-ledger.md`.
46
47	## 4. Questions
48
49	- Ask only when the answer changes the result, safety boundary, or public contract.
50	- Max 3 per round, each with a recommended default and 2-3 options.
51	- Never re-ask a settled fact. Never ask the operator to re-authorize approved work.
52	- For `operator_profile=business`, every question is answerable by "go with your suggestion".
53
54	## 5. Options
55
56	- 0-3 options, only when a real choice exists. A single viable path is stated as the path, not padded.
57	- Each option card names its load-bearing assumption, first failure condition, worst plausible case, and cost to abandon (`references/option-card.md`).
58	- Recommend the smallest option that satisfies the contract. When a critical assumption is unresolved, recommend the option cheapest to abandon.
59	- Cut unrequested scope; keep all requested scope.
60
61	## 6. Approval State
62
63	- `approval: pending \| approved(<who>, <YYYY-MM-DD>) \| assumed-autonomous`.
64	- Interactive: end with "Reply ok or corrections". An ok approves only the artifact presented.
65	- Autonomous or channel mode without an interactive reply channel: set `assumed-autonomous` and continue; `tier=high` still blocks pending explicit human sign-off.
66
67	## 7. Self-Review Before Handoff
68
69	- Placeholders: TBD, TODO, empty sections.
70	- Contradictions between sections.
71	- Scope: one plan, or needs splitting.
72	- Ambiguity: a requirement with two readings; pick one and state it.
73
74	## Red Flags
75
76	Stop when thinking: "too simple to need a brief", "they said implement, so skip intake", "it's a bug, pick a fix", "list three options to look thorough", "ask again to be safe", "they approved the idea, so the plan is approved". Each is a rationalization, not a reason.
77
78	## Anti-Patterns
79
80	- No unlabeled claims: every AS-IS or feasibility statement carries an evidence tag.
81	- No padded options: never invent alternatives to reach three.
82	- No silent approval: a brief without `approval` is incomplete.
83	- No reopened decisions: settled facts are carried forward, not re-asked.
84
85	## References
86
87	- [Contract Templates](references/contract-template.md)
88	- [Evidence Ledger](references/evidence-ledger.md)
89	- [Option Card](references/option-card.md)
90