Matching

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Interpretations

Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user’s input:

Interpretation 1 — Define selection criteria: The user has options to evaluate and needs help building the set of criteria (must-haves, preferences, deal-breakers) to filter and rank them. Interpretation 2 — Evaluate fit against criteria: The user already has criteria and a specific option, and wants to assess how well that option matches. Interpretation 3 — Align stakeholders on requirements: The user has multiple stakeholders with different needs and wants to reconcile them into a shared, prioritized criteria set.

If ambiguous, ask: “I can help with defining selection criteria, evaluating an option against criteria, or aligning stakeholders on requirements — which fits?” If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.

Overview

Define criteria for filtering options

Steps

Step 1: Extract goal requirements

Analyze the goal to identify implicit requirements:

• What must be true for the goal to be achieved?
• What would make a solution unacceptable?
• What constraints exist (time, money, resources)?

Step 2: Identify stakeholder needs

For each stakeholder (or stakeholder type):

• What do they need from the solution?
• What would they reject?
• What would delight them?

Step 3: Categorize criteria by type

Sort all requirements into criteria categories:

MUST-HAVE (Required):

• Non-negotiable requirements
• Constraint-driven criteria
• Safety/legal requirements

MUST-NOT-HAVE (Exclusions):

• Automatic disqualifiers
• Known failure patterns
• Incompatible characteristics

SHOULD-HAVE (Preferred):

• Strongly desired features
• Significant value-add
• Differentiating factors

NICE-TO-HAVE (Optional):

• Bonus features
• Future-proofing
• Convenience factors

Step 4: Define evaluation method for each criterion

For each criterion, specify HOW to evaluate it:

• Binary (yes/no): Clear pass/fail
• Scalar (1-10): Degree of satisfaction
• Threshold (>X): Minimum acceptable value
• Comparative (better than Y): Relative assessment

Also specify:

• What evidence is needed?
• Who can make this judgment?
• How long does evaluation take?

Step 5: Check for conflicts and gaps

Review criteria set for issues:

Conflicts:

• Do any criteria contradict each other?
• Are there impossible combinations?
• Will trade-offs be needed?

Gaps:

• Are there obvious criteria missing?
• Does the set cover all stakeholder needs?
• Are there blind spots?

Feasibility:

• Can all criteria actually be evaluated?
• Do we have access to needed information?

Step 6: Finalize criteria set

Produce final criteria list:

1. Resolve or document conflicts
2. Add any missing criteria from gap analysis
3. Assign weights if needed (for Optimization step)
4. Calculate completeness estimate
5. Count required criteria

When to Use

• After Generation, before Comparison
• When you need to establish what “good enough” means
• When stakeholders need to agree on requirements
• When filtering will be done by someone else (criteria as contract)
• When options vary widely and need systematic filtering
• When past decisions lacked clear criteria (learning from mistakes)

Verification

• All must-have criteria are truly non-negotiable
• Criteria are evaluable (not vague or subjective)
• No redundant criteria (each adds information)
• Criteria derive from goal (not arbitrary)
• Conflicts are documented, not hidden