Claude Decision Evaluation Framework: seven analytical lenses for tough choices

Making big decisions is hard. Not because of a lack of information, but because it's difficult to evaluate a choice from enough angles simultaneously. I built the Claude Decision Evaluation Framework to address exactly this — it runs a decision through seven different analytical frameworks and gives you scores and reasoning for each.

The seven frameworks

When you feed a decision into the system, Claude analyzes it through: Cost-Benefit Analysis (economic viability), SWOT Analysis (strategic positioning), a weighted Decision Matrix (multi-criteria evaluation), the ICE Framework (impact, confidence, ease), Risk-Reward Assessment (potential gains vs losses), the Eisenhower Matrix (importance vs urgency), and Regret Minimization (which choice you'd regret least in 10 years).

Each framework produces a detailed analysis report, an objective 0-100 score, and key insights. The scores are deliberately not averaged into a single number. That's by design — the value is in seeing where frameworks agree and where they diverge. High consensus means a clear-cut decision. Low consensus means complex trade-offs that deserve deeper reflection.

How to use it

The workflow is straightforward. You write up your decision in a markdown file in the queue directory, describing the context, your current situation, available options, and constraints. Then you run the /analyze-decision slash command. Claude processes your decision through all seven frameworks simultaneously and generates a comprehensive output with individual reports and a summary dashboard.

I've found it useful for career decisions, financial choices, strategic business pivots, and personal life decisions. The framework methodology guides in the repo are worth reading on their own — they explain each scoring system and what different score ranges mean.

What it's not

I want to be clear about the philosophy here: this is a thinking tool, not a decision-maker. It won't tell you what to do. It illuminates trade-offs you might have missed and helps you think more clearly about complex choices. The frameworks are amoral — they don't evaluate ethics — and they're only as good as the input you give them. But used honestly, they've helped me catch blind spots I would have otherwise missed.

The repo is open source on GitHub and you can customize the frameworks, adjust scoring scales, or add entirely new analytical lenses.