Ai decision engine
Skill varunk130/claude-code-skills/skills/product-management/ai-decision-engine
A curated, categorized library of 29 production-grade Claude Code custom skills across finance, product, strategy, game theory, and document processing.
npx -y skills add varunk130/claude-code-skills --skill ai-decision-engineAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Strategic product decision engine that reads ALL available project context (PRDs, research docs, metrics, competitive intel, roadmaps, CLAUDE.md) and provides holistic, multi-dimensional strategic recommendations. Use when making product prioritization decisions, quarterly planning, evaluating build/ship/kill tradeoffs, resolving conflicting stakeholder input, determining what to build next, or any strategic question requiring synthesis across multiple information sources.
SKILL.md
4.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
PM Decision Engine - Strategic Context Synthesizer
This skill is a strategic reasoning system. It reads ALL available project context, applies multiple frameworks simultaneously, looks for convergence, and produces a recommendation with explicit reasoning chains.
PHASE 1: Context Assembly (Always Do This First)
Before answering ANY strategic question, scan the working directory for:
- CLAUDE.md or README.md → product context, team info, constraints
- docs/ or specs/ → existing PRDs, feature specs
- research/ → user research, interview notes, survey results
- data/ or metrics/ → analytics exports, dashboards
- competitive/ → competitor analysis, market research
- roadmap/ → planning artifacts
For each source found, log:
| Source | Key Signal | Recency | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| [filename] | [what it tells us] | [when updated] | [high/med/low] |
If critical context is missing, say so: "I don't have [X]. My recommendation will be stronger with it."
PHASE 2: Situation Model
Write this out before reasoning:
- Product stage: Early / Growth / Mature / Turnaround
- Primary constraint: Engineering capacity / Market timing / Revenue pressure / Tech debt / Competitive threat
- Active bets: What we're currently building and why
- Unresolved tensions: Where evidence conflicts
- Decision type: One-way door (irreversible) vs. Two-way door (reversible)
PHASE 3: Multi-Framework Analysis
Apply ALL FOUR frameworks. Never rely on just one.
Framework 1: Impact x Confidence Matrix
| Option | Expected Impact | Confidence | Evidence Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| [A] | [quantified if possible] | [High/Med/Low] | [which docs] |
Framework 2: Strategic Alignment Scoring
Score each option 1-5:
| Dimension | Weight |
|---|---|
| User pain severity | 25% |
| Business impact (revenue, retention, expansion) | 25% |
| Strategic fit (alignment with vision) | 20% |
| Timing sensitivity (competitive urgency) | 15% |
| Execution feasibility | 15% |
Calculate weighted scores. Show the math.
Framework 3: Second-Order Effects
For top 2-3 options:
- Direct effect → Second-order effect → Third-order effect
- Opportunity cost (what gets delayed/killed)
- Team effect (morale, skills, hiring)
- Market signal (what this tells customers and competitors)
Framework 4: Pre-Mortem
"It's 6 months from now and this FAILED. What happened?"
- Failure scenario 1: [specific] - Probability: [%] - Early warning: [signal]
- Failure scenario 2: [specific] - Probability: [%] - Early warning: [signal]
- Failure scenario 3: [specific] - Probability: [%] - Early warning: [signal]
PHASE 4: Synthesis & Recommendation
TL;DR: One sentence - what to do and why
Confidence level: High / Medium / Low - because [reason]
Framework convergence:
- What each framework says
- Where they agree and disagree
- What the divergence tells us
The recommendation: 2-3 paragraphs with clear reasoning.
What would change this recommendation:
- If we learned [X], we might instead do [Y]
- If metric [Z] changes by more than [N%], reconsider
- If competitor does [W], reassess
Immediate next steps (this week):
- [Specific action]
- [Specific action]
- [Specific action]
Reasoning Rules
Always:
- Show reasoning chains
- Quantify where possible
- Acknowledge uncertainty with confidence levels
- Include "do nothing" as an explicit option
- Separate observation from interpretation
Never:
- Apply a single framework alone
- Ignore contradictions between sources
- Recommend without stating trade-offs
- Be a yes-machine
- Forget opportunity cost