---
name: skeptical-triage
description: Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for stress-testing a critical PM decision before it is finalized. Filters weak reasoning and false confidence from strategy, prioritization, spec, pricing, and gate decisions.
when_to_use: |
  Apply skeptical triage when:
  - Two options both look reasonable and the call is hard to make in 2 minutes
    (strategy bet A vs B, build-vs-buy, pricing model X vs Y)
  - A decision rests on a belief stated as fact ("users want this", "this will
    lift retention") and getting it wrong is expensive
  - A gate package is about to go to the human and the recommendation is contested
  Do NOT apply to:
  - Obvious calls with a single viable option
  - Trivial / advisory points (cost > benefit)
  - Plain facts (a real metric, a confirmed competitor feature) — facts are not
    judgments
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Bash, Glob, WebFetch, WebSearch
paths:
  - ".great-pm/**"
---

# Skeptical Triage — for critical decisions

Three rounds of skeptical self-review + an impartial arbiter, with a confidence
score from the vote. Used by pm-reviewer (and any agent facing a contested
call) to make sure a decision is sound before it is finalized.

## The 4-step pattern

Run sequentially. Each round sees the prior rounds. The arbiter sees all rounds.

### Round 1 — Premise
Question: **is the premise true?**
The decision rests on an assumption — name it, then test it. "We should build X
because users want it" -> is "users want it" established (research, data) or
assumed? If the premise is unproven, lean WEAK.
Output: {round: 1, verdict: SOUND|WEAK|UNCERTAIN, reasoning, crux}

### Round 2 — Evidence
Question: **is the cited evidence real and sufficient?**
For every claimed benefit or demand, find the actual source. A number in a
draft is not evidence until you can point to where it came from (a survey, an
analytics export, a competitor's public data). If you cannot point to the
source, the claim is belief, not evidence — label it so.
Output: same shape, with evidence_checked: true/false

### Round 3 — Missed angles
Question: **what did Rounds 1-2 not consider?**
Second-order effects, the option nobody raised, the user segment not
represented, what happens if the decision is wrong. Add NEW evidence or concede
— do not rehash prior rounds.
Output: same shape

### Arbiter
Input: all 3 rounds + the original decision.
Deliver a single verdict — SOUND | WEAK (no UNCERTAIN — make the call) — a
one-sentence crux (the fact the verdict turns on), and the reasoning.

## Hard rules
1. **Absence of evidence -> WEAK, not UNCERTAIN.** "There is probably data
   somewhere" is not evidence.
2. **A stated benefit is not evidence.** "This will improve retention" needs a
   source or a testable mechanism — otherwise it is a belief; label it.
3. **Name the source or it does not exist.** Vague "market trends say..." does
   not count.
4. **A preference is not a flaw.** Disliking an approach is not the same as the
   approach being wrong. Separate taste from substance.
5. **Trust a genuinely sound decision.** If it holds up across 3 rounds, say
   SOUND — do not manufacture doubt.

## Confidence scoring
confidence = sound_rounds_before_arbiter / 3
- 100% (SSS) — arbiter rubber-stamps unless it finds something brand-new.
- 67% — majority sound; arbiter breaks the tie with new evidence.
- 33% / 0% — majority weak; arbiter usually confirms WEAK.
The arbiter overrides the final verdict; confidence reflects the round vote so
the human can see where the arbiter diverged.

## Output
Log to `.great-pm/triage-log.jsonl` (append-only, one JSON object per line):
timestamp, decision, the 3 rounds, the arbiter verdict + crux, confidence. This
log is how we measure whether triage earns its keep.

## Anti-patterns
- Triaging trivial / advisory points — triage is for decisions that matter.
- Letting rounds rehash each other — Round 3 must add new evidence or concede.
- Hiding an arbiter override — record both the vote confidence and the arbiter
  call so the human sees the disagreement.