Source profileQuality 86/100

nexu-io/open-design/skills/research-decision-room/SKILL.md

research-decision-room

Turn messy user research notes, interviews, support tickets, surveys, and product context into an evidence-backed decision room: a single HTML artifact with an evidence ledger, theme map, confidence heatmap, opportunity matrix, decision memo, and experiment queue. Use when teams need to move from qualitative signals to product or design decisions without fabricating certainty.

Source repository stars
82,073
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-07-28
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

Create a single-page HTML decision artifact that helps a product or design team turn messy evidence into a clear next move. The output is not a decorative research deck. It is a working room for debate: evidence, themes, confidence, tradeoffs, and recommended experiments stay vi…

Best for

  • Interview notes, usability-test observations, support tickets, sales call notes,
  • A decision that needs evidence: "Should we build X?", "Which onboarding path
  • A need to share findings with stakeholders who will not read a long research

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/nexu-io/open-design --skill "skills/research-decision-room"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "research-decision-room" from https://github.com/nexu-io/open-design/blob/89d6d4ef21baf80f871595abdf6f7de6e941dd44/skills/research-decision-room/SKILL.md at commit 89d6d4ef21baf80f871595abdf6f7de6e941dd44. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Workflow

    Identify the decision scope from the user's prompt. If the user did not give a decision, derive one from the evidence and label it as inferred.

    Decision question.Audience or segment.Time horizon.
  2. 02

    Step 1 - Establish the decision frame

    Identify the decision scope from the user's prompt. If the user did not give a decision, derive one from the evidence and label it as inferred.

    Decision question.Audience or segment.Time horizon.
  3. 03

    Step 2 - Build the evidence ledger

    Normalize every useful signal into ledger rows using the model in references/evidence-model.md.

    id: short stable id, such as I-03, T-14, M-02.sourcetype: interview, usability, support, survey, analytics, sales, fieldsegment: user type or "unknown".
  4. 04

    Step 3 - Synthesize themes and tensions

    Cluster evidence into 4 to 6 themes. For each theme:

    Name the theme in plain human language.List the evidence ids that support it.Explain the behavior behind it, not just the UI complaint.
  5. 05

    Step 4 - Score opportunities

    Create an opportunity matrix with 3 to 5 options. Score each option on a 1 to 5 scale:

    Evidence strength.User pain.Business leverage.

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score86/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars82,073SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
nexu-io/open-design
Skill path
skills/research-decision-room/SKILL.md
Commit
89d6d4ef21baf80f871595abdf6f7de6e941dd44
License
Apache-2.0
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Research Decision Room Skill

Create a single-page HTML decision artifact that helps a product or design team turn messy evidence into a clear next move. The output is not a decorative research deck. It is a working room for debate: evidence, themes, confidence, tradeoffs, and recommended experiments stay visible together.

Resource map

research-decision-room/
├── SKILL.md
├── example.html
└── references/
    ├── checklist.md
    └── evidence-model.md

Read references/evidence-model.md before synthesis and run references/checklist.md before emitting the artifact.

When to use this skill

Use this skill when the user has any mix of:

  • Interview notes, usability-test observations, support tickets, sales call notes, app-store reviews, NPS comments, survey open text, analytics snippets, or product-decision context.
  • A decision that needs evidence: "Should we build X?", "Which onboarding path should we try?", "Why are users dropping off?", "What do customers actually mean by slow?"
  • A need to share findings with stakeholders who will not read a long research report.

Do not use it for pure visual inspiration, campaign ideation, or brand moodboards.

Workflow

Step 1 - Establish the decision frame

Identify the decision scope from the user's prompt. If the user did not give a decision, derive one from the evidence and label it as inferred.

Write a short frame with:

  • Decision question.
  • Audience or segment.
  • Time horizon.
  • Known constraints.
  • What this artifact will not decide.

If key context is missing and the task is not blocked, proceed with labelled assumptions instead of asking a broad question.

Step 2 - Build the evidence ledger

Normalize every useful signal into ledger rows using the model in references/evidence-model.md.

Each ledger row must include:

  • id: short stable id, such as I-03, T-14, M-02.
  • source_type: interview, usability, support, survey, analytics, sales, field note, or stakeholder.
  • segment: user type or "unknown".
  • signal: one-sentence observation.
  • quote_or_metric: direct quote, metric, or "not provided".
  • strength: strong, medium, or weak.
  • limitations: why this evidence may be biased or incomplete.

Never invent quotes, participant counts, dates, revenue impact, or metrics. If the user did not provide a number, use "not provided" and explain what evidence would increase confidence.

Step 3 - Synthesize themes and tensions

Cluster evidence into 4 to 6 themes. For each theme:

  • Name the theme in plain human language.
  • List the evidence ids that support it.
  • Explain the behavior behind it, not just the UI complaint.
  • Mark confidence as high, medium, or low.
  • Note contradictions or segment differences.

Prefer verbs over nouns: "Teams abandon setup when the first blank state asks for too much" is better than "Onboarding problem".

Step 4 - Score opportunities

Create an opportunity matrix with 3 to 5 options. Score each option on a 1 to 5 scale:

  • Evidence strength.
  • User pain.
  • Business leverage.
  • Implementation risk, where 5 means low risk and 1 means high risk.

Show the total score, but do not let the score replace judgment. Add one sentence on why the top recommendation wins.

Step 5 - Draft the decision memo

Write a decision memo with:

  1. Recommended move.
  2. Why now.
  3. What evidence supports it.
  4. What could be wrong.
  5. What to measure next.
  6. Reversible next step.

Keep the memo short enough to read in under one minute.

Step 6 - Create the HTML artifact

Produce a self-contained index.html. Use the active DESIGN.md for typography, spacing, color roles, and component tone, but keep the information architecture stable:

  1. Header with decision question, confidence, and last-updated label.
  2. Executive readout with recommendation, risk, and next experiment.
  3. Evidence ledger with filter chips.
  4. Theme map with evidence ids and confidence.
  5. Opportunity matrix.
  6. Decision memo.
  7. Experiment queue with owner, metric, and success threshold.
  8. Assumptions and limitations.

The artifact should be interactive but durable. Simple vanilla JavaScript is allowed for filtering evidence, switching views, or highlighting related ids. No framework dependency is required.

Step 7 - Self-check and emit

Run the checklist. Then emit one concise orientation sentence and one HTML artifact:

<artifact identifier="research-decision-room" type="text/html" title="Research Decision Room">
<!doctype html>
<html>...</html>
</artifact>

Nothing after the closing </artifact>.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 997

event4u-app/agent-config

design-review

Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.

Computed 9631,966

K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills

neuropixels-analysis

Analyze Neuropixels extracellular recordings end-to-end with SpikeInterface. Covers loading SpikeGLX/Open Ephys/NWB data, preprocessing, drift/motion correction, Kilosort4 (and CPU) spike sorting, quality metrics, and unit curation (threshold-based, model-based UnitRefine, and AI-assisted visual review). Use when working with Neuropixels 1.0/2.0 recordings, spike sorting, or extracellular electrophysiology analysis.

Computed 9531,966

K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills

scientific-brainstorming

Facilitates evidence-aware scientific ideation with independent generation, structured discussion, explicit assumptions, transparent evaluation, adversarial review, and decision logs. Use for early-stage research brainstorming or prioritizing candidate directions; hand off empirical validation, study design, ethics or regulatory review, and clinical questions to appropriate experts or skills.

Computed 9431,966

K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills

citation-management

Comprehensive citation management for academic research. Search Google Scholar and PubMed for papers, extract accurate metadata, validate citations, and generate properly formatted BibTeX entries. This skill should be used when you need to find papers, verify citation information, convert DOIs to BibTeX, or ensure reference accuracy in scientific writing.