Triad check

Bring product, design, and technical perspectives together when a decision crosses boundaries or is hard to reverse.

Canonical skill profile. This page is generated from the repository contract. The linked SKILL.md remains the source of authority.

Jump to

• Overview
• When to use
• When not to use
• Core moves
• Expected output
• Verification
• Handoff signals
• Pairs well with
• Anti-patterns

View the canonical contract on GitHub.

Overview

Use this skill when the right next step depends on more than one functional lens and the work should not silently continue inside one specialty.

When to Use

• cross-functional decisions
• hard-to-reverse changes
• ambiguous ownership

When NOT to Use

• small single-domain tasks with obvious ownership

Core Moves

1. Name the decision under review.
2. Assess it through product, design, and technical lenses. Force the value-vs-cost tension explicitly:
   • Product — What value/lever does this move, for which ICP, and what is the evidence?
   • Design — What experience cost or benefit, and where could it dilute the value proposition?
   • Tech — What permanent complexity does this add, and how reversible is it?
3. Identify the dominant conflict.
4. Choose the leading function and the next move.

Optional Modules

• Owner split — Decide whether the work continues in one thread, several threads, or a handoff.
• Risk tie-breaker — Use reversibility and operational risk to resolve disagreement.
• Decision note — Capture the rationale when the triad materially changes the plan.
• Permanent-cost tension — When the three lenses disagree on whether the value is worth the forever-carry, surface it as a value-governance question and route to feature-value-governance rather than letting one function quietly win.

Activation Triggers

• Use owner split when more than one function must act next.
• Use risk tie-breaker when the disagreement is about speed versus caution.
• Use decision note when the outcome affects future similar work.
• Use the permanent-cost tension module when the disagreement is really about whether the value justifies the permanent complexity.

Expected Output

• dominant function
• conflict summary
• execution recommendation

Verification

• All three lenses were actually considered.
• The chosen next step is operational, not purely descriptive.
• Ownership is clearer after the check than before it.

Handoff Signals

• The next action belongs to a different function.
• The work must be split across functions with explicit boundaries.

Pairs Well With

• workflow
• feature-planning
• communication

Anti-patterns

• Using triad-check for every trivial choice.
• Ending with collective ambiguity instead of a next move.
• Collapsing three lenses into one opinion.