Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› decision-autopsy
decision-autopsy
GitHub用于复盘过往重大决策，剥离结果偏见，严格基于决策当时的已知信息评估决策质量。生成包含过程鉴定、运气归因及唯一可执行流程改进建议的报告，帮助团队区分决策优劣与结果好坏，避免从错误案例中学习错误教训。
触发场景
复盘失败的重大投资或项目
回顾被质疑但可能正确的决策
分析招聘或战略转向等关键人事/业务决定
团队倾向于以结果论英雄时
安装
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill decision-autopsy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "decision-autopsy",
"description": "Judge a past decision by its PROCESS, not its outcome — because good decisions lose and bad decisions win, and teams that can't tell the difference learn the wrong lessons. Use when reviewing a big call after the fact (a bet that failed, a pass that haunts, a hire, a pivot) and the room is about to conclude 'it failed so it was wrong.' Produces a process-forensics report: what was knowable then, the quality grade of the decision as-made, the luck accounting, and the ONE process change worth keeping."
}
Decision Autopsy
Outcome bias is the strongest bias in organisational memory: the bet that failed becomes "obviously reckless," the coin-flip that landed becomes "visionary." The autopsy separates the two questions that always get merged: was it a good decision? and did it get a good outcome? — because only the first is under anyone's control next time.
Required Inputs
- The decision — what was decided, when, by whom, and what the live alternatives were.
- What was knowable at the time — the information, constraints, and time pressure as of the decision date. Be strict: things learned afterward go in a separate pile, and the autopsy will police the boundary.
- The outcome — what actually happened, so the luck accounting has something to account.
The Forensic Frames
- The information test: given only what was knowable then, what would a calibrated outsider have chosen? (The autopsy answers this before re-examining the outcome, to keep hindsight out of the grade.)
- The process test: were alternatives really generated? Was disconfirming evidence sought or only tolerated? Was the reversibility of the choice priced in? Was a kill-criterion set?
- The luck accounting: decompose the outcome into decision quality vs. variance — what portion of the result would replay differently if the world rolled again?
- The lesson filter: the only lessons worth keeping are process lessons ("we never priced reversibility") — outcome lessons ("don't bet on X") overfit to one roll of the dice.
Output Format
- The two verdicts, separated — Decision: 🟢 sound / 🟡 flawed / 🔴 negligent as made. Outcome: good / bad / mixed. State them side by side; the whole point is that they can disagree.
- The knowability ledger — table: fact | knowable then? | actually known? | changed the call? Hindsight contamination gets flagged explicitly ("this entered the story after the fact").
- The luck accounting — one honest paragraph: what fraction of this outcome was variance, with the reasoning shown.
- The one process change — a single, named, repeatable change to how decisions like this get made ("every >$100k bet gets a written kill-criterion before commitment"). One. Teams adopt one; they file lists.
- The replay line — "facing the same information again, the right call would be ___" — the sentence that inoculates the team against both regret and false confidence.
Quality Checks
- The decision grade was assigned from the knowability ledger BEFORE outcome discussion, and the report's structure shows it
- At least one hindsight contamination is caught and named — reviews without any are usually not looking
- The luck paragraph commits to a rough proportion, with reasoning — "some luck was involved" is evasion
- The process change is executable next quarter and testable ("did we do it?"), not a value statement
- If the decision was 🟢 and the outcome bad, the report says the uncomfortable sentence plainly: "do it again"
Anti-Patterns
- Do not let the outcome leak into the grade — a bad result may not appear as evidence of a bad decision anywhere in the report
- Do not run an autopsy as a trial — no verdicts on people; the unit of analysis is the process that any competent person was embedded in
- Do not conclude "we were unlucky" without the ledger to earn it — luck is the residual after process is examined, never the headline
- Do not extract more than one lesson — the second-best lesson dilutes the best one
- Do not autopsy decisions younger than their outcome — if the result isn't actually in yet, this is a premortem's job
版本历史
- 961cbeb 当前 2026-07-11 19:33
