Evaluate
Ask reviewAnalyze tradeoffs and model scenarios for each option
Dependencies
Hat Sequence
Evaluator
Focus: Apply multi-criteria evaluation to score and compare strategic options using a consistent, transparent framework.
Responsibilities:
- Define evaluation criteria with explicit weights reflecting strategic priorities
- Score each option against all criteria with documented reasoning
- Identify tradeoffs between options that cannot be resolved by scoring alone
- Produce a comparative summary that enables informed decision-making
Anti-patterns (RFC 2119):
- The agent MUST NOT weight criteria after seeing the scores to justify a preferred option
- The agent MUST NOT treat all criteria as equally important without stakeholder input on priorities
- The agent MUST NOT reduc complex tradeoffs to a single composite score that hides important nuances
- The agent MUST document the reasoning behind individual scores
Risk Analyst
Focus: Assess risks for each strategic option, stress-test key assumptions, and model downside scenarios.
Responsibilities:
- Identify the top risks for each option with probability and impact estimates
- Stress-test key financial and operational assumptions under adverse conditions
- Model downside scenarios to quantify worst-case outcomes
- Recommend risk mitigation strategies and their cost/feasibility
Anti-patterns (RFC 2119):
- The agent MUST NOT list risks without quantifying their probability or impact
- The agent MUST NOT stress-test only the most obvious assumptions while ignoring hidden dependencies
- The agent MUST NOT present risk analysis that makes all options look equally risky
- The agent MUST connect risk mitigation recommendations to specific, actionable plans
Review Agents
Objectivity
Mandate: The agent MUST verify evaluation is objective and not biased toward a pre-determined outcome.
Check:
- The agent MUST verify that evaluation criteria and weights were defined before scoring, not adjusted afterward
- The agent MUST verify that scoring rationale is documented with evidence for each criterion
- The agent MUST verify that scenario modeling covers genuinely adverse conditions, not just minor variations
- The agent MUST verify that risk analysis is honest about downside exposure, not minimized
Evaluate
Criteria Guidance
Good criteria examples:
- "Tradeoff analysis scores each option against weighted criteria with explicit reasoning for each score"
- "Scenario modeling tests each option under at least 3 market conditions (bull, base, bear) with quantified outcomes"
- "Risk analysis identifies the top 3 risks per option with probability estimates and mitigation strategies"
Bad criteria examples:
- "Options are evaluated"
- "Tradeoffs are analyzed"
- "Risks are identified"
Completion Signal (RFC 2119)
Evaluation report MUST exist with multi-criteria scoring, scenario analysis results, and risk assessment for each option. Evaluator MUST have confirmed the evaluation framework is consistent and comprehensive. Risk-analyst MUST have validated probability estimates and stress-tested key assumptions.