To run this task you must have the following required information:

> A decision with multiple options to compare

If you don't have all of this information, exit here and respond asking for any extra information you require, and instructions to run this task again with ALL required information.

---

You MUST use a todo list to complete these steps in order. Never move on to one step if you haven't completed the previous step. If you have multiple read steps in a row, read them all at once (in parallel).

Add all steps to your todo list now and begin executing.

## Steps

1. [Read Decision Matrix Guide]: Read the documentation in: `skills/sauna/[skill_id]/references/analysis.decision.guide.md`

2. Get the decision context from the user. If they haven't provided one, ask:
"What decision are you trying to make? What options are you considering?"

Clarify the options—aim for 2-5 genuine alternatives.


3. Define the criteria. Ask:
"What factors matter for this decision? What would make one option better than another?"

Help them articulate 4-8 specific, measurable criteria. Challenge vague criteria
like "quality" or "good"—what specifically makes something quality?


4. Weight the criteria. Present the list and ask:
"If these weights had to add up to 100, how would you distribute them?"

Probe their priorities. If they say "all equal," push back—rarely is everything
truly equal. The weighting conversation often reveals hidden priorities.


5. Score each option against each criterion (1-5 scale, where 5 is best among
these options). Work through systematically:

"For [criterion], how would you rate [option A] compared to the others?"

Challenge extreme scores (1s and 5s)—are they truly worst/best among options?


6. Calculate weighted scores and generate the decision matrix document:

- Clear decision statement
- Options listed
- Criteria with weights and descriptions
- Full scoring matrix with weighted totals
- Analysis of winner, key tradeoffs, and sensitivity
- Clear recommendation

Present the document. Note if the "winner" conflicts with the user's gut—
that conflict is worth examining.