Run meetings that actually decide — the pre-read-then-decide format, the options-on-the-table rule, the decider named before debate starts, and the recorded-or-it-didn't-happen close. Use when asked run this decision meeting, we discuss forever and never decide, structure the meeting where we pick the vendor/plan/design, or why do our decisions get relitigated. Produces the meeting design: pre-read, the in-room sequence, the decision rule, and the recording that makes it stick.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use decision-meeting-format to prepare a decision meeting for [decision and written options], naming [decider or decision rule] and producing the pre-read, timeboxed clarify-advocate-decide agenda, and decision-record template.
Required inputs
[decision and written options]
[decider or decision rule]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: decision-meeting-formatdescription: "Run meetings that actually decide — the pre-read-then-decide format, the options-on-the-table rule, the decider named before debate starts, and the recorded-or-it-didn't-happen close. Use when asked run this decision meeting, we discuss forever and never decide, structure the meeting where we pick the vendor/plan/design, or why do our decisions get relitigated. Produces the meeting design: pre-read, the in-room sequence, the decision rule, and the recording that makes it stick."
Decision Meeting Format Skill
Meetings fail to decide for structural reasons, not character ones: the options were never written down (so debate invents them live), the decider was never named (so consensus is assumed and never arrives), and the decision was never recorded (so it gets relitigated by everyone who remembers it differently). The format fixes all three before the room opens: a pre-read with the options steelmanned, the decider and decision rule announced in the invite, a timeboxed sequence that separates clarifying from advocating, and a close where the decision — with its why and its dissent — lands in the log before anyone leaves.
Not quite this? Use care-decision-family-meeting when the decision is a family's choice about care for a relative.
What This Skill Produces
The pre-read spec — the options doc (each steelmanned, with the recommendation) shipped 24h+ ahead
The in-room sequence — clarify → advocate → decide, timeboxed, with the facilitator moves per phase
The decision rule — who decides and how (decider-decides / consent / vote), announced before debate
The record — decision, why, dissent noted, owner and date — logged before adjourning
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
The decision and its options — what's being decided, the real options (the pre-read needs them written; a decision meeting without written options is a brainstorm wearing a suit)
The decider — one name, or the explicit rule (consent? majority?); "we'll align" is not a rule, and discovering the rule mid-conflict is the classic failure
The stakes and the reversibility — reversible decisions get lighter process (the decision-journal two-way-door logic); one-way doors earn the full format
The relitigation history — has this been "decided" before? Then the record section works overtime, and the meeting opens by naming what reopening required
Framework: The Format Rules
The pre-read carries the options: each option with its honest best case, cost, and risk (proposal-skeleton steelman rules), plus a recommendation — shipped 24h ahead. In-room reading time is the fallback (ten silent minutes beats unprepped debate), never the plan.
Name the decider before the debate: the invite states "input: everyone · decision: [name]" or the consent rule — announced before positions harden, because assigning the decider after disagreement looks like picking the winner. Ambient consensus-assumption is where decisions go to orbit.
Separate clarifying from advocating: phase one is questions-only (understanding the options, no positions — facilitator enforces); phase two is timeboxed advocacy (strongest case per option, dissent actively solicited: "who sees a problem with the recommendation?"); phase three is the decider deciding in the room — deferring the call to "after I reflect" is sometimes right and always announced with a date, never silent.
Dissent gets recorded, not converted: the goal is a decision people can commit to, not one everyone agrees with — "disagree and commit" works when the dissent is named in the record ("X preferred option B for reasons Y — noted, decided A"). Unrecorded dissent becomes next quarter's relitigation fuel.
The record is the product: decision, the why in two sentences, dissent noted, owner + date, where it lives (the decision log) — written and shown in the meeting's last five minutes, because records written later are written differently. Reopening rule stated: new information reopens; new mood doesn't.