Decision Forensics

SKILL.md

---
name: decision-forensics
description: "Reconstruct the decision actually made in a messy Slack, email, or meeting thread into a proper decision record — commitments named, silent assumptions surfaced, non-decisions called out. Use when asked what did we actually decide, turn this thread into a decision record, who committed to what, or reconstruct this discussion. Produces a decision record with quoted evidence, a commitments table, reconstructed assumptions, dismissed options, and a confidence note on the reconstruction itself."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/decision-forensics.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "📐" }
  }
---

# Decision Forensics Skill

Most decisions are never stated — they precipitate out of a thread and everyone leaves with a different memory of them. This skill is the forensic pass: what was actually decided (if anything), who committed to what, and which disagreements got papered over rather than resolved. (To *write* a fresh decision going forward, use `architecture-decision-record`; this skill reconstructs one from the wreckage.)

## What This Skill Produces

- **The decision, stated cleanly** — one sentence, even though nobody ever said it in one sentence — or the finding "no decision was reached"
- **The commitments table** — who agreed to do what, with the quote that binds them
- **Reconstructed assumptions** — what everyone silently took as true, labeled as reconstructed
- **Dismissed options and papered-over questions** — what was set aside, and what was never actually resolved
- **A confidence note** — how solid this reconstruction is and where it's guessing

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The thread** — Slack export, email chain, or meeting notes/transcript (paste; timestamps and names preserved if possible)
- **The cast** (optional) — who's who: roles and decision authority; else infer from context and label
- **What prompted the forensics** (optional) — a dispute, an audit, onboarding someone — shapes emphasis, never conclusions

## Framework: The Forensic Protocol

1. **Anchor** — find the moments where direction changed hands: an approval word ("ship it", "fine, let's"), an unobjected proposal followed by action talk, or authority going silent after a suggestion (silence + subsequent action = the most common decision form).
2. **Attribute** — every claim about a person gets a verbatim quote or close paraphrase *with the original wording nearby*. No quote, no attribution.
3. **Excavate assumptions** — what must everyone have believed for the exchange to make sense? Label each `[reconstructed]` — these were never said.
4. **Separate resolved from papered-over** — a question answered vs a question abandoned when someone changed the subject. The second list is usually the valuable one.
5. **Grade the reconstruction** — HIGH (explicit approval by named authority) · MEDIUM (unobjected proposal + consistent action) · LOW (inferred from fragments). State it.

## Output Format

---

# Decision Record (reconstructed): [one-sentence decision]
**Source:** [thread, date range] · **Reconstruction confidence:** HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — [why]

## The Decision
[One sentence. Or: "**No decision was reached.** The thread ends with X unresolved; subsequent action, if any, happened without recorded agreement."]

## Commitments
| Who | Committed to | The binding quote | By when |
|---|---|---|---|

## Assumptions (all `[reconstructed]`)
- …

## Options Dismissed
| Option | Dismissed by/when | Stated reason | Actually resolved? |
|---|---|---|---|

## Papered Over
[Questions raised and abandoned — each with who raised it and where the thread swerved.]

---

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every attribution carries a quote or near-paraphrase with original wording nearby
- [ ] Assumptions are labeled `[reconstructed]` — never presented as things people said
- [ ] The confidence grade matches the evidence type (explicit / unobjected / inferred)
- [ ] Papered-over questions are listed separately from resolved ones
- [ ] If no decision was reached, the record says so plainly

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not attribute positions beyond what the text supports — quote it or drop it
- [ ] Do not resolve ambiguity by inventing agreement — surfacing the ambiguity IS the deliverable
- [ ] Do not clean a non-decision into a decision; "no decision was reached" is a valid, common, and useful finding
- [ ] Do not editorialize about who was right — forensics reconstructs; it doesn't adjudicate
- [ ] Do not omit the confidence note — a reconstruction that hides its own uncertainty is fabrication with footnotes