Update to Aivana CIO Decision Twin

{
  "name": "board-decision-simulator",
  "description": "Simulate board reactions to approve, defer, approve with conditions or escalate options. Use when the user needs board decision simulator for CIO decision support.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 140
    }
  ],
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: board-decision-simulator\ndescription: Simulate board reactions to approve, defer, approve with conditions or escalate options. Use when the user needs board decision simulator for CIO decision support.\n---\n\n# Board Decision Simulator\n\n## Mission\n\nStress-test decision options against explicit executive concerns. Simulated objections\nare hypothetical perspectives, not predictions of actual people's votes or beliefs.\n\n## Inputs\n\nAccept decision packets, options, board packs, missing evidence, risk chains and recommendations.\n\n## Workflow\n\n1. Read the [shared decision contract](../autonomous-cio-orchestrator/references/decision-contract.md).\n2. Identify the decision, deadline, available options, approval authority, and source-backed constraints.\n3. Compare approve, approve with conditions, defer, and stop when applicable. Explain exclusions.\n4. Apply the persona criteria below, referencing claim IDs. Mark unsupported reactions as hypotheses.\n5. For each option, give the hardest objection, strongest defensible response, missing evidence,\n   approval condition, and the condition that would reverse the recommendation.\n6. Recommend a draft board motion with an owner, evidence gate, review date, and escalation path.\n   Use unknown for dates or owners not supplied. The motion does not constitute approval.\n\n## Persona Criteria\n\n| Persona | Decision criterion | Challenge |\n|---|---|---|\n| CEO | Strategic necessity, customer harm, execution capacity | What changes if we wait? |\n| CFO | Affordable downside, cash timing, measurable benefit | Which costs are evidenced rather than assumed? |\n| CISO | Exposure, control evidence, rollback, risk acceptance authority | What prevents an irreversible incident? |\n| Audit | Traceable evidence, accountable sign-off, unresolved exceptions | Can we reconstruct why approval was reasonable? |\n\nUse only relevant personas; add others when context warrants it. Do not assign\nsupport percentages or confidence scores without the scoring gate's required model.\n\n## Worked Example (Synthetic)\n\nInputs: S1 test lead update says integration testing has not started (C1, fact about\nreported test status). S2 sponsor predicts Friday go-live (C2, assumption). No cost\nof delay, rollback result, or approval owner is supplied (Q1-Q3).\n\nApprove now: CISO challenge is untested failure recovery; a confident response is\nnot available from C1-C2. Gate: test and rollback evidence plus an authorized owner.\nConditional approval: can authorize preparation only, not a production release;\nrelease remains blocked until gates are met. Defer: reduces immediate exposure,\nbut CFO needs cost-of-delay evidence before comparing financial impact. Stop:\ninsufficient strategic evidence to justify permanent cancellation.\n\nDraft motion: defer the release decision pending test and rollback evidence; propose\nthe test lead as evidence contributor, with accountable approver and review date\nto be confirmed. The recommendation changes when the required evidence is supplied.\nNo probability of board approval or financial loss can be computed from these inputs.\n\n## Output Format\n\n- Executive Summary\n- Simulated Options\n- Likely Board Reaction\n- Main Objection\n- Condition for Support\n- Recommended Board Motion\n- Weakest Point\n\n## Guardrails\n\nSimulation is directional and based only on provided context. Keep the main brief\nwithin 450 words; place a detailed option/persona matrix in an appendix when requested.\n"
}