just-vibeDecisions · plan by default
/decision-matrix
Compare options using weighted criteria and explain the weights
Use when several explicit criteria need weighted comparison; decide suffices for a decisive hard constraint.
Make it your own.
In Claude Code, use the slash command and add your context. In Codex, select decision-matrix from the just-vibe skill picker, then send the same brief.
Version 0.11.0 also supports /jv decision-matrix, /just-vibe decision-matrix and /jv:decision-matrix in Claude. See shortcut setup and context examples.
/just-vibe:decision-matrix Compare three authentication options; maintenance is the highest priority./just-vibe:decision-matrix Compare three databases when one fails a hard regional requirement./just-vibe:decision-matrix Build a comparison with unknown costs; use bounds or missing values instead of invented scores.What the agent does
- Separate must-haves and feasibility from scored criteria, and define score anchors before rating.
- Score each option with cited evidence and normalized weights.
- Vary uncertain weights and scores over plausible ranges to test ranking stability.
Inputs
- options, measurable criteria, weights or priority guidance.
Optional context: scope, references, constraints, successCriteria, environment, mode, budget.
Scope
- Reads
- Transparent weighted comparison, including hard exclusions and sensitivity analysis.
- Writes
- No source changes in inspect/plan. Save only requested planning artifacts. A separately requested repair uses the relevant implementation workflow.
- Mode
- Plan; options, measurable criteria, weights or priority guidance.
- Prerequisites
- The decision question, constraints, alternatives or permission to identify them, and relevant project evidence. Current vendor claims and prices require current authoritative sources during execution. Scores are decision aids, not facts.
Expected output
- Matrix with criterion definitions, sources, exclusions, score rationale, weighted calculation, sensitivity result and recommendation.
How the work is checked
- An infeasible option cannot win by averaging; small weight changes that flip the result are disclosed.
When to stop or clarify
- Unknown scores remain unknown or bounded. Avoid false precision and do not invent numeric confidence from subjective ratings.
Handling missing context
- Infer
- Recover hard constraints, the current option, adoption status and stated priorities from the brief and prior decisions.
- Assume
- When only a priority order is given, derive provisional weights from it, show them, and report whether plausible reweighting changes the winner.
- Ask
- Ask only about a missing constraint or preference that could reverse the recommendation; do not demand a complete scoring questionnaire.
Technical guidance
- Evidence
- Collect criterion definitions, score anchors, weights, evidence ranges and excluded options.
- Method
- Separate feasibility from preference; vary uncertain weights and scores and report ties or rank reversals.
- Pitfall
- Double-counting correlated criteria can manufacture a winner; unknown evidence is not a neutral numeric score.
- Check
- Recalculate plausible extremes and explain the smallest assumption change that alters the winner.
Situational decisions
When a small plausible perturbation changes the winner: Report the unstable ranking and seek evidence on the sensitive criterion.
The coding agent follows this workflow using its available tools. Installation does not grant service access or guarantee an outcome. Read the compatibility notes.