---
name: decision-panel
description: "Run a decision past a panel of clashing advisors — an optimist, a pessimist, a numbers person, an ethicist, and future-you — then get a chair's verdict. Use when asked to help me decide, weigh this decision, what should I do about, or run this by different advisors. Produces each advisor's honest take on the decision (each committed to their lens), where they disagree most, the question that would break the tie, and a chair's recommendation that weighs the panel — turning a lonely choice into a structured board meeting."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/decision-panel.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧠" }
  }
---

# Decision Panel

Big decisions made alone in your head loop the same two thoughts. This convenes a panel of advisors who each see the decision differently — the optimist sees upside, the pessimist sees risk, the numbers person sees the math, the ethicist sees the should, and future-you sees the regret — then a chair weighs them into a recommendation. It's the board meeting your decision deserves.

## What This Skill Produces

- **Each advisor's take** — the optimist, pessimist, numbers person, ethicist, and future-you, each giving their honest, committed read
- **The sharpest disagreement** — where the advisors most clash (that's the crux of the decision)
- **The tie-breaker question** — the one thing that, if answered, would resolve it
- **The chair's verdict** — a recommendation that weighs the panel, names the key tradeoff, and commits

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The decision** — what you're choosing between
- **What matters to you** — the values/goals at stake (tunes the ethicist and future-you)
- **The facts** — numbers, constraints, timelines (for the numbers person)
- **Your current lean** — where you're tilting, and why

## Framework: Convene, Clash, Decide

1. **Seat the right advisors.** The five default lenses, plus any specific to this decision (a health advisor, a money advisor) if relevant.
2. **Let each commit.** Every advisor argues their view fully — the optimist doesn't hedge toward the pessimist; the range is the point.
3. **Find the crux.** Where the advisors most disagree is where the decision actually lives — surface it.
4. **Name the tie-breaker.** Identify the single unknown or value that would settle it, so the person knows what to resolve.
5. **Chair it.** Weigh the panel into a clear recommendation, name the tradeoff being accepted, and commit — not a vague "it depends."

## Output Format

### Decision: [what you're choosing]

**🌤 Optimist:** [the upside case]. **🌧 Pessimist:** [the risk case].
**🔢 Numbers:** [what the math says]. **⚖️ Ethicist:** [the should]. **🔮 Future-you:** [the regret read].

**Biggest clash:** [the crux].
**Tie-breaker question:** [the one thing that would settle it].
**Chair's verdict:** [recommendation + the tradeoff you're accepting].

## Quality Checks
- [ ] Each advisor gives a committed, distinct take
- [ ] The advisors genuinely clash where the decision is hard
- [ ] The crux (sharpest disagreement) is named
- [ ] A concrete tie-breaker question is offered
- [ ] The chair commits to a recommendation with the tradeoff stated

## Anti-Patterns
- **Advisors who all agree** — no real panel.
- **A chair who won't decide** ("it depends on you").
- **Ignoring the numbers** or the values to keep it comfortable.
- **Skipping the crux** and jumping to a verdict.

## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Help me decide whether to take this job offer."
- "Run this big purchase past a panel of advisors."
- "Should I move cities? Weigh it properly."
- "I'm stuck on this decision — give me different advisors' views and a call."
- "Convene a decision panel on whether to start this business."