pdlc-os/decide

You are recording a decision in the PDLC Decision Registry. The argument passed to this skill is: $ARGUMENTS

If $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask the user: "What decision would you like to record? Describe it in a sentence or two."

Lead Agent: mirrors current phase

The lead agent for the decision flow matches whoever is leading the current phase/sub-phase when /decide is issued. Read docs/pdlc/memory/STATE.md to determine the active phase and sub-phase, then select the lead:

| Phase | Sub-phase | Lead Agent | |-------|-----------|-----------| | Initialization | any | Atlas (Product Manager) | | Inception | Discover, Define | Atlas (Product Manager) | | Inception | Design, Plan | Neo (Architect) | | Construction | any | Neo (Architect) | | Operation | Ship, Verify | Pulse (DevOps) | | Operation | Reflect | Jarvis (Tech Writer) | | Idle / between phases | — | Atlas (Product Manager) |

Read the lead agent's full persona from their agent file and embody their perspective throughout the decision flow.

Before the first user-facing message, read skills/formatting.md for the visual patterns, then output a Sub-phase Transition Header for "DECISION REVIEW" followed by the lead agent's greeting:

[Lead Agent Name] ([Role]): "[Agent-appropriate greeting]. I'll run a Decision Review with the full team to assess how this affects the project. Let me gather everyone."

---

Pre-flight

Read these files:

1. docs/pdlc/memory/DECISIONS.md — to determine the next ADR number
2. docs/pdlc/memory/STATE.md — to capture the current phase, sub-phase, active feature, and last checkpoint

If DECISIONS.md does not exist, stop:

"Decision Registry not found. Please run /setup first."

Check for interrupted decision

Check if docs/pdlc/memory/.pending-decision.json exists. If it does, a previous decision flow was interrupted before completing.

Read the file and present to the user:

"Found an interrupted decision from a previous session:

• Decision: [decision text from file]
• Started: [timestamp from file]
• Phase at time: [phase from file]
• Progress: [last completed step from file]

What would you like to do?

• Resume — continue this decision from where it left off
• Restart — start fresh (re-runs the full Decision Review)
• Discard — cancel the old decision and proceed with the new one
• Discard all — cancel the old decision without recording a new one"

If the user chooses Resume: read the pending decision file for any saved MOM or assessment state and skip to the appropriate step. If the MOM was already written, skip to Step 3 (present to user). If assessments were done but MOM not written, skip to Step 2c. Otherwise start from Step 2.

If the user chooses Restart or Discard: delete .pending-decision.json and proceed with the current decision.

If the user chooses Discard all: delete .pending-decision.json and stop.

---

Step 1 — Checkpoint, persist, and classify

1a — Save decision to durable file

Write docs/pdlc/memory/.pending-decision.json:

{
  "decision": "[the full decision text]",
  "source": "User (explicit)",
  "timestamp": "[now ISO 8601]",
  "phase": "[current phase from STATE.md]",
  "subPhase": "[current sub-phase]",
  "feature": "[current feature]",
  "lastCheckpoint": "[Last Checkpoint from STATE.md]",
  "resumeCommand": "[/brainstorm or /build or /ship, based on phase]",
  "progress": "started"
}

This file is the recovery mechanism. It survives session loss, network failures, and usage limits. It is deleted at the end of Step 6 when the decision is fully recorded.

1b — Display checkpoint to user

If a phase is active (not Idle, not a Complete — Ready for state):

"Pausing [phase] / [sub-phase] at checkpoint [last checkpoint value]. Decision: [decision text]

Your progress is saved. If this session is interrupted:

• Run /decide — PDLC will detect the pending decision and offer to resume
• Run [resume command] — resumes the [phase] workflow from its last checkpoint"

If no phase is active:

"Decision: [decision text]

Your progress is saved. If this session is interrupted:

• Run /decide — PDLC will detect the pending decision and offer to resume"

1c — Classify

This decision was triggered by the user explicitly issuing /decide. Record:

• Source: User (explicit)
• Phase: current phase from STATE.md (or Any if STATE.md shows Idle)
• Agent: — (user-initiated, not agent-initiated)

---

Step 2 — Impact Assessment (Decision Review Party)

Before committing the decision to the registry, convene a Decision Review Party — a party mode meeting where the full team (9 built-in agents plus any matching custom agents from .pdlc/agents/) assesses the impact of this decision on their owned artifacts. Read skills/build/party/orchestrator.md for spawn mode and agent roster.

2a — Individual agent assessment

Each agent reviews their owned artifacts and evaluates whether this decision has material impact. Spawn agents per the orchestrator protocol.

| Agent | Reviews | Checks | |-------|---------|--------| | Neo (Architect) | docs/pdlc/design/[feature]/ARCHITECTURE.md, data model, API contracts | Does this change the system architecture, component boundaries, data model, or API contracts? Does it introduce or remove a dependency? | | Atlas (PM) | docs/pdlc/memory/ROADMAP.md, active PRD, docs/pdlc/memory/INTENT.md, brainstorm log | Does this affect feature priority/sequencing, requirements, acceptance criteria, scope, problem statement, or value proposition? Should features be resequenced? | | Bolt (Backend) | Backend source code, docs/pdlc/design/[feature]/api-contracts.md | Does this require backend code changes — services, DB schema, migrations, business logic, API endpoints? What is the estimated blast radius? | | Friday (Frontend) | Frontend source code, UI components, state management | Does this require frontend changes — components, state, routing, API client calls? | | Echo (QA) | Existing test suites, test gates in CONSTITUTION.md | Does this require new tests, modifications to existing tests, or changes to test gates? Which test layers are affected? | | Phantom (Security) | docs/pdlc/memory/CONSTITUTION.md, security constraints, auth flows | Does this change security constraints, introduce new attack surface, affect auth/authz, or require guardrail updates? | | Jarvis (Tech Writer) | docs/pdlc/memory/OVERVIEW.md, docs/pdlc/memory/CHANGELOG.md, API docs, README | Does this change documented functionality, API documentation, or user-facing descriptions? | | Muse (UX) | User flows, interaction design, wireframes | Does this change user-facing behavior, flows, or interaction patterns? | | Pulse (DevOps) | CI/CD config, deployment scripts, environment config | Does this affect deployment, environment variables, feature flags, infrastructure, or CI/CD pipeline? |

Custom agents: any agents in .pdlc/agents/ that are always_on: true or whose auto_select_on_labels match the decision context also participate. Each reviews the artifacts they own per their persona file and produces the same structured assessment format.

Each agent produces a structured assessment:

Agent: [name]
Impact: [Yes / No]
Artifacts affected: [list of specific files or areas, or "None"]
Changes needed: [specific description of what needs to change, or "—"]
Risk level: [None / Low / Medium / High]
Notes: [any caveats, dependencies, or concerns]

2b — Decision Review Party meeting

After individual assessments, convene the full team. All agents discuss:

1. Cross-cutting concerns — Where one agent's impact triggers another's (e.g., a backend schema change that requires frontend updates AND test modifications)
2. Roadmap resequencing — If Atlas identifies that this decision affects feature priority, the team discusses the new order. Priority in ROADMAP.md uses a separate integer column — resequencing just means updating Priority numbers, no ADR IDs change.
3. Risk consensus — Agents align on overall risk level: is this a minor tweak or a significant course correction?
4. Disagreements — If agents disagree on impact (e.g., Neo says architecture is fine but Bolt says the code impact is significant), surface the disagreement explicitly for the user.

2c — Write minutes of meeting

Write the MOM to: docs/pdlc/mom/MOM_decision_[ADR-NNN]_[YYYY-MM-DD].md

# Decision Review: [Decision title]

**Date:** [today YYYY-MM-DD]
**Decision:** [full decision text]
**Trigger:** [User (explicit) via /decide | PDLC flow — [phase]/[sub-phase]/[agent]]

---

## Agent Assessments

[For each agent that found impact:]

### [Agent Name] ([Role])
- **Artifacts affected:** [list]
- **Changes needed:** [description]
- **Risk level:** [Low/Medium/High]
- **Notes:** [caveats]

[For agents with no impact:]
### [Agent Name] ([Role])
- No impact identified.

---

## Cross-cutting Concerns
[List any chain reactions identified during the team discussion]

## Roadmap Impact
[If resequencing is needed: show current vs proposed priority order. If not: "No resequencing needed."]

## Risk Consensus
**Overall risk:** [Low / Medium / High]
**Rationale:** [one sentence]

## Disagreements
[List any, or "None — team consensus reached."]

---

## Recommended Changes

| # | File / Area | Agent | Change Description | Risk |
|---|-------------|-------|--------------------|------|
| 1 | [file path or area] | [agent] | [what to change] | [L/M/H] |
[... one row per change ...]

## Roadmap Resequencing
[If applicable: table showing Feature ID, Feature Name, Old Priority, New Priority. If not: "No resequencing required."]

Update .pending-decision.json: set "progress": "mom-written" and add "momFile": "[MOM file path]".

---

Step 3 — Present to user

Present the MOM summary to the user. Include:

1. The number of agents who identified impacts
2. The recommended changes table
3. Any roadmap resequencing proposal
4. Any disagreements that need the user's judgment

"Decision Review complete. [N] of [total participating] agents identified impacts.

Recommended changes: [table from MOM]

[If resequencing:] Roadmap resequencing proposed: [show old → new priority for affected features]

[If disagreements:] Needs your input: [describe the disagreement]

Shall I apply all recommended changes and record the decision? You can also:

• Apply selectively — tell me which changes to apply and which to skip
• Modify the decision — rephrase it and I'll re-assess
• Cancel — discard without recording"

Wait for user response.

• Apply all: Apply every change in the recommended table. If resequencing was proposed, update Priority numbers in ROADMAP.md. Proceed to Step 4.
• Apply selectively: Apply only the user-approved changes. Proceed to Step 4.
• Modify: Re-run from Step 2 with the modified decision text.
• Cancel: Stop without recording. Delete the MOM file.

---

Steps 4–6 — Record, Reconcile, and Resume

Read skills/decide/steps/record-and-reconcile.md and execute it completely (Steps 4–6: record the ADR, reconcile phase-specific impacts, present summary, and offer to resume).