Decision Prompt Builder
Build one compact choice card at a genuine mathematical-modeling judgment point.
Install
npx skills add zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills --skill decision-prompt-builder -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills1.1k
- Category
- Engineering
- Updated
- 1mo ago
- License
- MIT
- Context cost
- Lightabout 760 tokens
- Runs scripts
- No, instructions only
What it does
Build one compact choice card at a genuine mathematical-modeling judgment point. Use before method screening, after a meaningful experiment, or before final claim/freeze approval so the human chooses the trade-off while AI handles mechanical consequences.
Purpose
Ask the smallest useful question that only the human modeler can answer. Present mutually exclusive options with consequences; do not turn mechanical checks into user questions.
Inputs
- Current gate and the judgment it needs.
- Problem goal, required output, hard constraints, and available evidence.
planning/session_config.json.- Existing decisions in
methods/Qx/qx_decisions.jsonl.
Configuration
- Read
interaction_mode; accept legacymodefor compatibility. learning: show 2, 3 short questions and withhold the AI suggestion until the user answers.speed: show one compressed question and optionally show the AI suggestion alongside.rigor_profiledoes not change who owns the judgment.
Choice-Card Workflow
- Identify one load-bearing judgment.
- Create 2, 3 mutually exclusive options. Each option must state its practical consequence.
- Add
都不合适 / 补充约束when the listed options may not cover the user's intent. - Ask no more than three questions in one card.
- Do not recommend an option in
learningmode before the answer. - Pass the answer verbatim to
modeler-decision-logger; do not create a per-skill pending decision file.
Standard Cards
Before method screening
Ask only the missing high-impact items:
- output form to defend;
- interpretability/performance priority;
- unacceptable failure;
- experiment budget.
Do not ask the user to choose an algorithm name before evidence exists.
Example:
请选择这轮方案的首要取向:
- A. 可解释性优先, , 方法更透明,但可能牺牲部分拟合效果。
- B. 平衡, , 接受中等复杂度,要求能解释且优于可信 baseline。
- C. 性能优先, , 允许更复杂的方法,但需要额外稳健性和解释工作。
- D. 都不合适 / 我补充约束。
After a meaningful experiment
Use computed evidence to ask:
- proceed with the current main method;
- adjust a stated assumption or parameter and rerun;
- activate the recorded fallback.
Name the consequence and evidence for each option. Do not silently convert an AI metric preference into the human verdict.
