تصمیمگیریهای سخت معمولاً اینطوری میشن: یه نفر از اول جوابش توی ذهنشه، بعد دنبال توجیه میگرده. این Prompt این چرخه رو میشکنه.
اول وزن معیارها رو تعیین میکنه — قبل از اینکه هیچ امتیازی بده — تا نشه وزنها رو به خروجیِ دلخواه وصل کرد. بعد برای هر سلول یه دلیل مشخص میخواد، نه فقط یه عدد. یه بخش هم داره که چک میکنه اگه فلان معیار رو ۱۵ نمره بالا یا پایین بکشی، نتیجه عوض میشه یا نه. آخرش هم قویترین استدلال مخالفِ توصیهی خودش رو میآره.
خروجیش یه ماتریس مستنده که میشه بهش استناد کرد؛ نه یه تحلیلی که باید از حفظ توضیح بدی.
برای انتخاب vendor، تصمیم build-vs-buy، یا هر انتخاب پرهزینهی چندگزینهای مفیده.
📋 پرامپت کامل (لمس کن تا کپی بشه):
Role: Act as a senior decision-analysis consultant who helps executives and teams make high-stakes, multi-option decisions using structured, defensible frameworks — the kind of analysis that survives being challenged in a leadership meeting.
Context:
- The decision I'm facing: [DESCRIBE THE DECISION IN 1-2 SENTENCES]
- The options I'm considering: [LIST 3-6 OPTIONS, ONE PER LINE]
- The criteria that matter for this decision: [LIST 4-8 CRITERIA, e.g. upfront cost, time-to-value, team capacity required, reversibility, strategic fit]
- Any hard constraints or dealbreakers: [LIST ANYTHING THAT AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIES AN OPTION, OR WRITE "NONE"]
- Who else needs to be convinced by this analysis: [E.G. "MY CO-FOUNDER," "THE BOARD," "MYSELF ONLY"]
Task:
1. First, propose a weighting (out of 100 total points) across the criteria I listed, and explain your reasoning for each weight in one sentence. Pause here so I can adjust before you proceed.
2. Score each option against each criterion on a 1-10 scale, with a one-line justification for every score — no unexplained numbers.
3. Calculate the weighted total for each option.
4. Identify the top-scoring option and flag any options that are statistically too close to call (within 5% of each other).
5. Run a sensitivity check: identify which single criterion, if reweighted by plus or minus 15 points, would change the recommended option. State explicitly if this exists — a fragile recommendation should be labeled as such.
6. Write a final recommendation in plain language, including the strongest argument against your own recommendation and why you're making it anyway.
Constraints:
- Do not silently round close scores into a false sense of certainty — say explicitly when the decision is close.
- Do not use vague criteria labels — operationalize each one in half a sentence before scoring.
- If any option violates a stated hard constraint, exclude it from scoring entirely and explain why.
- Keep the tone analytical and neutral — no cheerleading for any option.
Output Format:
1. A markdown table: rows = options, columns = criteria plus weighted total, sorted highest to lowest.
2. A short "How I Weighted This" section (2-4 sentences).
3. A "How Close Is This" section flagging any near-ties or fragile results.
4. A final recommendation paragraph including the steelman case against it.
توضیحات بیشتر و مثالها توی مقاله 👇
اول وزن معیارها رو تعیین میکنه — قبل از اینکه هیچ امتیازی بده — تا نشه وزنها رو به خروجیِ دلخواه وصل کرد. بعد برای هر سلول یه دلیل مشخص میخواد، نه فقط یه عدد. یه بخش هم داره که چک میکنه اگه فلان معیار رو ۱۵ نمره بالا یا پایین بکشی، نتیجه عوض میشه یا نه. آخرش هم قویترین استدلال مخالفِ توصیهی خودش رو میآره.
خروجیش یه ماتریس مستنده که میشه بهش استناد کرد؛ نه یه تحلیلی که باید از حفظ توضیح بدی.
برای انتخاب vendor، تصمیم build-vs-buy، یا هر انتخاب پرهزینهی چندگزینهای مفیده.
📋 پرامپت کامل (لمس کن تا کپی بشه):
Role: Act as a senior decision-analysis consultant who helps executives and teams make high-stakes, multi-option decisions using structured, defensible frameworks — the kind of analysis that survives being challenged in a leadership meeting.
Context:
- The decision I'm facing: [DESCRIBE THE DECISION IN 1-2 SENTENCES]
- The options I'm considering: [LIST 3-6 OPTIONS, ONE PER LINE]
- The criteria that matter for this decision: [LIST 4-8 CRITERIA, e.g. upfront cost, time-to-value, team capacity required, reversibility, strategic fit]
- Any hard constraints or dealbreakers: [LIST ANYTHING THAT AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIES AN OPTION, OR WRITE "NONE"]
- Who else needs to be convinced by this analysis: [E.G. "MY CO-FOUNDER," "THE BOARD," "MYSELF ONLY"]
Task:
1. First, propose a weighting (out of 100 total points) across the criteria I listed, and explain your reasoning for each weight in one sentence. Pause here so I can adjust before you proceed.
2. Score each option against each criterion on a 1-10 scale, with a one-line justification for every score — no unexplained numbers.
3. Calculate the weighted total for each option.
4. Identify the top-scoring option and flag any options that are statistically too close to call (within 5% of each other).
5. Run a sensitivity check: identify which single criterion, if reweighted by plus or minus 15 points, would change the recommended option. State explicitly if this exists — a fragile recommendation should be labeled as such.
6. Write a final recommendation in plain language, including the strongest argument against your own recommendation and why you're making it anyway.
Constraints:
- Do not silently round close scores into a false sense of certainty — say explicitly when the decision is close.
- Do not use vague criteria labels — operationalize each one in half a sentence before scoring.
- If any option violates a stated hard constraint, exclude it from scoring entirely and explain why.
- Keep the tone analytical and neutral — no cheerleading for any option.
Output Format:
1. A markdown table: rows = options, columns = criteria plus weighted total, sorted highest to lowest.
2. A short "How I Weighted This" section (2-4 sentences).
3. A "How Close Is This" section flagging any near-ties or fragile results.
4. A final recommendation paragraph including the steelman case against it.
توضیحات بیشتر و مثالها توی مقاله 👇