Claude Decision Evaluation Framework

A structured system for analyzing major life and business decisions through multiple objective frameworks using Claude Code.

Purpose

This framework helps you examine important decisions from seven different analytical perspectives. It's not designed to tell you what to do, but rather to:

• Illuminate different aspects of your decision
• Reveal trade-offs and considerations you might have missed
• Provide objective scoring across multiple dimensions
• Help you think more clearly about complex choices

How It Works

1. Write Your Decision

Create a markdown file in /decisions/queue/ describing your decision:

# Should I Accept the Job Offer?

## Context
I've been offered a senior engineering role at a startup...

## Current Situation
I currently work at a stable corporation with...

## The Options
1. Accept the startup offer
2. Stay at current company
3. Negotiate for different terms

## Constraints
- Need to decide within 2 weeks
- Family considerations...

2. Run the Analysis

In Claude Code, run:

/analyze-decision your-decision-name

Claude will analyze your decision through seven frameworks simultaneously:

1. Cost-Benefit Analysis - Economic viability and practical value
2. SWOT Analysis - Strategic positioning and competitive factors
3. Decision Matrix - Multi-criteria weighted evaluation
4. ICE Framework - Impact, Confidence, and Ease scoring
5. Risk-Reward Assessment - Potential gains vs potential losses
6. Eisenhower Matrix - Importance and urgency prioritization
7. Regret Minimization - Long-term perspective and future regret

3. Review the Results

Each framework produces:

• A detailed analysis report
• An objective 0-100 score
• Key insights and recommendations

You'll receive a comprehensive output showing:

• All seven framework reports
• Individual scores (NOT averaged)
• Areas of agreement and disagreement
• Summary dashboard

The Seven Frameworks

1. Cost-Benefit Analysis

Best for: Financial decisions, resource allocation, investments

Quantifies all costs (financial, time, opportunity) against all benefits to calculate net value and ROI.

Score Interpretation:

• 80-100: Highly favorable economics
• 60-79: Clear positive return
• 40-59: Break-even or marginal
• 20-39: Marginally negative
• 0-19: Strongly unfavorable

2. SWOT Analysis

Best for: Strategic decisions, career moves, competitive situations

Examines Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats to determine strategic positioning.

Score Interpretation:

• 80-100: Very strong strategic position
• 60-79: Favorable position
• 40-59: Balanced, depends on execution
• 20-39: Challenging position
• 0-19: Very weak position

3. Decision Matrix (Weighted Criteria)

Best for: Complex multi-factor decisions, comparing options objectively

Evaluates the decision against 5-8 key criteria, each weighted by importance.

Score Interpretation:

• 85-100: Exceptional across criteria
• 70-84: Strong decision
• 55-69: Moderate, acceptable trade-offs
• 40-54: Weak, significant compromises
• Below 40: Fails to meet key criteria

4. ICE Framework

Best for: Prioritization, resource-constrained choices, quick wins

Scores based on Impact (how significant), Confidence (how certain), and Ease (how simple).

Score Interpretation:

• 80-100: Exceptional opportunity
• 60-79: Strong opportunity
• 40-59: Moderate opportunity
• 20-39: Weak opportunity
• 0-19: Poor opportunity

5. Risk-Reward Assessment

Best for: High-stakes decisions, uncertain outcomes, asymmetric bets

Compares best-case rewards against worst-case risks, weighted by probability.

Score Interpretation:

• 70-100: Reward clearly exceeds risk
• 50-69: Favorable risk-reward ratio
• 30-49: Balanced or slightly risky
• 10-29: Risk exceeds reward
• 0-9: Unfavorable risk exposure

6. Eisenhower Matrix

Best for: Time management, prioritization, distinguishing urgent from important

Classifies decisions by Importance (goal alignment) and Urgency (time sensitivity).

Score Interpretation:

• 85-100: Urgent & Important (Do First)
• 65-84: Important, Not Urgent (Schedule)
• 35-64: Urgent, Not Important (Delegate)
• 0-34: Neither (Eliminate)

7. Regret Minimization Framework

Best for: Life-changing decisions, values-based choices, risk vs safety

Projects future regret at 1, 5, and 10+ years, asking which choice you'd regret least.

Score Interpretation:

• 70-100: Low regret if you DO this
• 55-69: Moderate preference for doing
• 45-54: Similar regret either way
• 30-44: Moderate preference for NOT doing
• 0-29: Low regret if you DON'T do this

Repository Structure

Claude-Decision-Evaluation-Framework/
├── decisions/
│   ├── queue/              # Place new decisions here
│   └── processed/          # Analyzed decisions move here
├── frameworks/             # Framework methodology guides
│   ├── cost-benefit-analysis.md
│   ├── swot-analysis.md
│   ├── decision-matrix.md
│   ├── ice-framework.md
│   ├── risk-reward-assessment.md
│   ├── eisenhower-matrix.md
│   └── regret-minimization.md
├── outputs/                # Analysis results saved here
├── templates/              # Decision templates
├── .claude/
│   └── commands/
│       └── analyze-decision.md  # The slash command
├── CLAUDE.md              # Instructions for Claude
└── README.md              # This file

Getting Started

1. Set Up

Clone this repository and open it in Claude Code:

git clone <repository-url>
cd Claude-Decision-Evaluation-Framework
claude-code

2. Create Your First Decision

Use the template in /templates/decision-template.md to create your decision file in /decisions/queue/.

3. Run Analysis

/analyze-decision

Claude will list available decisions if you don't specify a filename.

4. Review Results

Check /outputs/ for your comprehensive analysis report.

Example Use Cases

Career Decisions:

• Job offers
• Career changes
• Freelancing vs employment
• Starting a business

Financial Decisions:

• Major purchases
• Investments
• Relocations
• Education/training

Personal Decisions:

• Relationships
• Lifestyle changes
• Health commitments
• Long-term goals

Business Decisions:

• Product launches
• Strategic pivots
• Hiring decisions
• Partnership opportunities

Interpreting Results

When Frameworks Agree (High Consensus)

Multiple frameworks scoring similarly indicates:

• Clear-cut decision
• Consistent factors across dimensions
• Higher confidence in the direction

When Frameworks Disagree (Low Consensus)

Frameworks with divergent scores indicate:

• Complex trade-offs
• Different priorities matter
• Need for deeper reflection on values
• Context-dependent decision

Pay Special Attention To:

1. Extreme scores (very high or very low) - these reveal strong signals
2. Regret Minimization - often provides the clearest long-term perspective
3. Risk-Reward - critical for understanding downside exposure
4. Your gut reaction - which frameworks resonate with your intuition?

Best Practices

Be Honest: The frameworks only work if you're truthful about your situation, constraints, and feelings.

Provide Context: More detail in your decision description leads to better analysis.

Don't Cherry-Pick: Review ALL framework results, even ones that disagree with your preference.

It's a Tool, Not a Dictator: These frameworks inform your decision; they don't make it for you.

Revisit Over Time: Some decisions benefit from running the analysis multiple times as circumstances change.

Limitations

This framework has important limitations:

• Not deterministic: It won't tell you definitively what to do
• Garbage in, garbage out: Analysis quality depends on input quality
• No moral judgments: Frameworks are amoral - they don't evaluate ethics
• Context-blind: AI doesn't know your full life context
• Quantification limits: Not everything can be scored numerically
• No guarantee: Following framework recommendations doesn't guarantee success

Philosophy

Good decisions come from examining choices through multiple lenses. Each framework reveals different aspects:

• Cost-Benefit focuses on efficiency and value
• SWOT focuses on strategic positioning
• Decision Matrix focuses on prioritized criteria
• ICE focuses on achievability and impact
• Risk-Reward focuses on asymmetry and probabilities
• Eisenhower focuses on time and importance
• Regret Minimization focuses on long-term perspective

Your job is to synthesize these perspectives with your own judgment, values, and context to make the best decision for YOU.

Customization

You can customize this framework:

• Modify framework guides in /frameworks/ to adjust methodologies
• Create new frameworks following the same pattern
• Adjust scoring scales to suit your preferences
• Add custom criteria to Decision Matrix

Contributing

Improvements welcome:

• Better framework methodologies
• Additional frameworks
• Template improvements
• Documentation enhancements

License

[Specify your license]

Credits

Built for use with Claude Code by Anthropic.

Framework methodologies adapted from established decision-making systems:

• Cost-Benefit Analysis (Economics)
• SWOT Analysis (Business Strategy)
• Decision Matrix (Decision Science)
• ICE Framework (Growth Hacking)
• Risk-Reward Assessment (Finance)
• Eisenhower Matrix (Productivity)
• Regret Minimization (Behavioral Economics)

---

To view an index of my Claude Code related projects, click here.