---
name: mohitagw15856/decision-journal
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/mohitagw15856-decision-journal@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: eaddb4addd73
---

# Decision Journal Skill

Memory is a defense attorney: after the outcome arrives, everyone remembers having known it all along, and the reasoning that actually drove the choice is quietly rewritten. A decision journal defeats that — the reasoning gets pre-registered *before* reality votes, so the review can ask the only question that improves judgment: *was the process good, given what was knowable then?* Good decisions lose sometimes; bad ones win sometimes; only the written record can tell you which you're making. This is the library's 600th skill because it's the one all the others compound through.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The entry** — situation, the real options, the choice, the reasoning, explicit probabilities, and the pre-registered "I'm wrong if…" markers
- **The review trigger** — a date and the observable that will have resolved by then
- **The outcome review** — process vs. luck separated, the delta between expected and actual, and the transferable lesson
- **The pattern read** — across entries: the recurring biases this specific person's journal reveals

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The decision** — what's actually being chosen, and by when; "should I…" questions get reframed into the options actually on the table
- **The honest state** — what's known, what's guessed, how they feel (mood is data: tired-angry-rushed decisions deserve their own flag in the entry)
- **For reviews:** the original entry and what actually happened — the review is against the entry, never against memory

## Framework: The Pre-Registration Rules

1. **Write the base case and the alternatives, fairly:** the entry states each real option with its strongest case — a journal of straw men reviews into nothing. "Do nothing" is always listed; it's the option most decisions are actually competing against.
2. **Probabilities, in numbers:** "I think this works" becomes "70% this reaches X by [date]." Numbers feel false and are — but a written 70% can be scored later, and "probably" cannot. Calibration only ever comes from this discomfort.
3. **Pre-register the falsifiers:** "I'm wrong if [observable] by [date]" — written now, while it's cheap. This is the line that makes the future review honest and the mid-course correction possible without ego litigation.
4. **Process vs. outcome, ruthlessly separated at review:** four quadrants — good process/good outcome (skill), good process/bad outcome (variance — change nothing), bad process/good outcome (the most dangerous quadrant: luck teaching a bad lesson), bad process/bad outcome (tuition — extract the lesson). The review names the quadrant *before* discussing feelings.
5. **Patterns beat entries:** every ~10 reviews, read across: systematically overoptimistic on timelines? Underweighting exit costs? Deciding worst when rushed? The journal's compounding value is the personal bias list no generic advice can give.

## Output Format

# Decision Entry: [title] — [date]

**Deciding:** [the actual choice + deadline] · **State:** [known / guessed / mood flag]

## Options (each at its strongest)
1. … 2. … 3. Do nothing: …

## The Call
**Choice:** [option] · **Because:** [the 2–3 load-bearing reasons]
**Expectations:** [X% that (observable) by (date); …]
**I'm wrong if:** [observable + date] · **Review on:** [date]

---
*(At review:)*
## Outcome Review — [date]
**What happened:** … **vs. expected:** …
**Quadrant:** [skill / variance / lucky / tuition] — [why]
**Transferable lesson:** [one sentence, about process not this event]

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every option including do-nothing gets its strongest case
- [ ] At least one expectation carries a number and a date
- [ ] The falsifier is observable, not a feeling
- [ ] Reviews compare against the written entry, never memory
- [ ] The quadrant is named before the lesson is drawn

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not journal after deciding-in-your-heart and call it deliberation — the entry's value is being written while genuinely open
- [ ] Do not grade decisions by outcome alone — the lucky quadrant is where bad habits get reinforced
- [ ] Do not write unfalsifiable expectations ("this will probably work out") — they review into nothing
- [ ] Do not skip small decisions categorically — the journal's patterns come fastest from frequent entries
- [ ] Do not let the review become self-flagellation or victory laps — one quadrant, one lesson, close the entry