Use when facing a significant decision with multiple viable paths - choosing between approaches, architectures, tools, or solutions. Applies the 1-3-1 method for structured decision-making.
A structured framework for making significant decisions. Prevents analysis paralysis while ensuring thorough consideration of alternatives.
Core principle: One problem, three options, one recommendation.
Distill the decision into a single, clear problem statement.
Good: "Which authentication strategy balances security with implementation speed?" Bad: "How should we build the login system?"
Generate three distinctly different approaches. Each must:
Evaluate options against relevant criteria and recommend one.
Evaluation criteria (select relevant ones):
**Core Problem:** [Clear, specific problem statement]
**Option 1:** [Name]
[Description]
- Pros: [advantages]
- Cons: [disadvantages]
**Option 2:** [Name]
[Description]
- Pros: [advantages]
- Cons: [disadvantages]
**Option 3:** [Name]
[Description]
- Pros: [advantages]
- Cons: [disadvantages]
**Recommendation:** [Chosen option]
**Reasoning:** [Brief explanation of why this is the best approach]
For significant decisions, gather these 4 inputs first:
Core Problem: Which HTTP client library for our Node.js API?
Option 1: Axios - Popular, promise-based, good interceptors Option 2: node-fetch - Minimal, native fetch API Option 3: Got - Feature-rich, retry built-in, TypeScript native
Recommendation: Got Reasoning: TypeScript-first, built-in retry logic reduces boilerplate, active maintenance.
When the decision has significant impact, use the full format with prerequisites gathered first.
This skill is used by these workflows:
/create-feature – Feature development decisions/create-epic – Epic decomposition strategies/create-bugfix – Root cause and fix approach selection/suggest-solutions – General problem-solvingInvoke with @decision-making for standalone use.