Framework for structured product decision-making. Use when facing complex tradeoffs, aligning stakeholders, documenting decisions, or choosing between multiple valid approaches.
Provides a structured framework for making complex product decisions. Use when facing tradeoffs, aligning stakeholders, or choosing between multiple valid approaches with competing priorities.
/plugin marketplace add flpbalada/thinking-toolkit/plugin install making-product-decisions@thinking-toolkitThis skill inherits all available tools. When active, it can use any tool Claude has access to.
A meta-framework for making and documenting product decisions. Combines decision science principles with practical product management needs to ensure better decisions, stakeholder alignment, and organizational learning.
+------------------+------------------+
| Type 1 | Type 2 |
| (One-way door) | (Two-way door) |
+------------------+------------------+
| Irreversible | Reversible |
| High stakes | Lower stakes |
| Slow, careful | Fast, iterate |
| Senior decision | Delegate widely |
+------------------+------------------+
| Good Outcome | Bad Outcome | |
|---|---|---|
| Good Decision | Deserved success | Bad luck |
| Bad Decision | Good luck | Deserved failure |
Judge decisions by process quality, not just outcomes.
| Approach | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Data-driven | Clear metrics, sufficient data, understood system |
| Data-informed | Incomplete data, novel situations, judgment needed |
| Intuition-led | Time pressure, expert domain, pattern matching |
Most product decisions should be data-informed, not purely data-driven.
| Element | Question |
|---|---|
| What | What exactly are we deciding? |
| Why | Why does this decision matter? |
| Who | Who should be involved? |
| When | When must we decide by? |
| Reversibility | Type 1 or Type 2 door? |
Always have at least 3 options:
Avoid binary framing - it limits thinking.
| Criterion | Weight | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| [Criterion 1] | [1-5] | [Explanation] |
| [Criterion 2] | [1-5] | [Explanation] |
| [Criterion 3] | [1-5] | [Explanation] |
| Option | Criterion 1 | Criterion 2 | Criterion 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Status quo | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Sum] |
| Option A | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Sum] |
| Option B | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Sum] |
Record:
## Product Decision Record
**Decision:** [Clear statement of what was decided] **Date:** [Date] **Decision
maker:** [Name] **Status:** [Proposed/Approved/Implemented]
### Context
**Problem/Opportunity:** [What prompted this decision]
**Constraints:** [Time, resources, dependencies]
**Reversibility:** [Type 1 / Type 2]
### Options Considered
| Option | Description | Pros | Cons |
| ---------- | ----------- | ---- | ---- |
| Status quo | [Desc] | [+] | [-] |
| Option A | [Desc] | [+] | [-] |
| Option B | [Desc] | [+] | [-] |
### Decision Criteria
| Criterion | Weight | Rationale |
| --------- | ------ | --------- |
| [C1] | [1-5] | [Why] |
| [C2] | [1-5] | [Why] |
### Evaluation
| Option | [C1] | [C2] | Weighted Total |
| ------- | ----- | ----- | -------------- |
| [Opt 1] | [x/5] | [x/5] | [Score] |
| [Opt 2] | [x/5] | [x/5] | [Score] |
### Decision
**Chosen option:** [Option name]
**Rationale:** [Why this option best meets criteria]
**Dissenting views:** [Captured disagreements and concerns]
### Success Criteria
| Metric | Current | Target | Measure By |
| ------ | ------- | ------- | ---------- |
| [M1] | [Value] | [Value] | [Date] |
### Review
**Review date:** [Date] **What we'll evaluate:** [Criteria for success/failure]
Decision: Build custom analytics or use third-party tool?
| Criterion | Weight | Build | Buy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to market | 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Customization | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Long-term cost | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Maintenance burden | 4 | 2 | 5 |
| Total | 42 | 66 |
Decision: Buy, despite customization limitations.
Decision: Next quarter focus - mobile app or API improvements?
Applied decision criteria:
Result: Mobile app scored higher on revenue and retention despite higher complexity.
| Type | Approach |
|---|---|
| Type 1, high stakes | Take time, involve stakeholders |
| Type 2, reversible | Decide quickly, iterate |
| Unclear type | Default to faster, can always slow down |
| Method | Combined Use |
|---|---|
| Hypothesis Tree | Structure analysis of options |
| Jobs-to-be-Done | Ground criteria in user needs |
| Five Whys | Understand decision root causes |
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.