Note-and-Vote
Quick facts
Classification: tool | Version: 0.1.0 | Category: coordination | License: Apache-2.0
Try it: /tool-note-and-vote "Your context here"
Run a structured group decision in 20-30 minutes. Silent contribution surfaces independent thinking before group dynamics narrow the option space; explicit Decider supervote closes the choice. Produces a written audit trail of the decision and the alternatives considered.
When to Use
- A small team (3-10 people) needs to make a fast decision with diverse input.
- Groupthink, status bias, or loudest-voice dominance is a real risk.
- A workshop or meeting moment demands silent ideation before open discussion.
- The decision needs an audit trail (what was considered, why the chosen option won).
- Decision authority is clear (a Decider exists and is in the room or available).
- Used heavily across Foundation Sprint and Design Sprint at decision moments.
When NOT to Use
- A single person owns the decision and just needs to make it. Use direct judgment.
- Consensus has already emerged organically. The voting overhead adds friction without value.
- The decision is high-stakes enough to warrant longer deliberation (multi-day investigation, written proposals, formal review). Note-and-Vote is a 25-minute tool, not a governance process.
- No Decider is available and the team has no authority to close the decision themselves. Defer until a Decider can attend.
How to Use
Use the /tool-note-and-vote slash command:
/tool-note-and-vote "Your context here"Or reference the skill file directly: skills/tool-note-and-vote/SKILL.md
Output Template
Note-and-Vote: [Decision name]
Decision Question
[Verbatim question as posed to the team. One sentence, unambiguous, not compound.]
Time Allocation
| Step | Duration |
|---|---|
| Framing | _ min |
| Silent ideation | _ min |
| Silent voting | _ min |
| Discussion | _ min |
| Decider supervote | _ min |
| Total | _ min |
Voting Method
[Single-vote / Multi-vote (N votes per person) / Dot-vote with weighted dots. Note whether attribution is on or off.]
Silent Ideation Board
[All contributions captured during the silent ideation step. Use a list, table, or grouped clusters depending on volume.]
[Participant 1] ([timestamp]):
- [Contribution]
- [Contribution]
[Participant 2] ([timestamp]):
- [Contribution]
[Continue per participant. If attribution is off, omit names and list contributions by cluster.]
Vote Summary
| Option | Votes | Voted by |
|---|---|---|
| [Option text] | N | [Names or anonymous count] |
| [Option text] | N | [Names or anonymous count] |
| [Option text] | N | [Names or anonymous count] |
Total votes cast: [N participants x M votes each = total]
Discussion Notes
[Brief rationale that surfaced during the 5-10 minute discussion. Focus on WHY voters chose the top 2-3 options, not relitigation of the question.]
- [Top option]: [Voter or voters explained their rationale was…]
- [Second option]: [Rationale…]
- [Surprise or contradiction]: [Anything the discussion revealed that the vote alone did not.]
Decision Record
Decision: [Chosen option, verbatim]
Decider: [Name, role]
Decider rationale (if non-obvious or diverges from top vote): [One or two sentences explaining the supervote.]
Alternatives explicitly considered and rejected:
- [Alternative 1] (rejected because [reason])
- [Alternative 2] (rejected because [reason])
- [Other alternatives if relevant]
Confidence: [High / Medium / Low. If Medium or Low, note what would increase confidence and when the team revisits.]
Signed: [Decider name], [ISO date and local time]
Decider Checkpoint
Decider sign-off required before [the next sprint move or decision moment].
- Decider confirms the decision will hold for the remainder of the [sprint / meeting / workshop].
- Decider acknowledges what was chosen against (the explicit alternatives).
- Team confirms they can commit to executing on this decision in [the next move].
- (Optional) Decider names a revisit condition: under what evidence the team would re-vote.
Example Output
Note-and-Vote: Brainshelf Target Customer Selection
Note-and-Vote: Brainshelf Target Customer Selection
A single Note-and-Vote invocation during Day 1 morning of the Brainshelf Foundation Sprint. The team needed to choose a target customer before proceeding to important-problem framing.
Decision Question
Of the candidate target customers we have surfaced from our 22 interviews, which one should the Brainshelf Foundation Sprint commit to for Day 1 Basics?
Time Allocation
| Step | Duration |
|---|---|
| Framing | 1 min |
| Silent ideation | 5 min |
| Silent voting | 3 min |
| Discussion | 7 min |
| Decider supervote | 1 min |
| Total | 17 min |
Voting Method
Multi-vote (each participant gets 2 dots); Decider gets an additional supervote that overrides ties or surfaces a different choice. Attribution is on (small team, prior agreement).
Silent Ideation Board
Jamie (09:14):
- Individual collectors (read alone, library is for self)
- Active social readers (book clubs, friend recommendations, Goodreads survivors)
Alex (09:14):
- People who read on multiple formats (audio + kindle + paper) and lose track across formats
- “Book hoarders” who own more than they have read
Sam (09:15):
- Readers who hit Goodreads churn point (3+ months in, dropped because of social pressure)
- People who track in spreadsheets today (highest existing friction tolerance)
Riley (09:15):
- Book club coordinators (manage 5-20 people’s reading)
- Romance / genre readers (high volume, repeat behavior)
- People who read 25+ books/year and treat books as memory (NOT identity)
Vote Summary
| Option | Votes | Voted by |
|---|---|---|
| 25+ books/year, books-as-memory readers (Riley) | 3 | Jamie, Alex, Riley |
| Individual collectors (Jamie) | 1 | Alex |
| Active social readers (Jamie) | 1 | Sam |
| Multi-format readers (Alex) | 1 | Jamie |
| Goodreads churn readers (Sam) | 1 | Riley |
| Book club coordinators (Riley) | 0 | - |
| Romance / genre readers (Riley) | 0 | - |
| Spreadsheet trackers (Sam) | 0 | - |
| ”Book hoarders” (Alex) | 0 | - |
Total votes cast: 8 (4 participants x 2 dots each)
Discussion Notes
- Books-as-memory readers (top option): Riley argued this framing absorbs individual collectors and Goodreads churners as adjacent segments. The other voters (Jamie, Alex) confirmed this matches the pattern from the 22 interviews.
- Sam’s social-readers vote: “I voted for it because we know that segment well via Riley, but I’m convinced by the discussion that this is the easier, lower-leverage choice. Social readers are well-served by Goodreads. We can’t out-Goodreads Goodreads.”
- Alex’s individual-collectors vote: “I think individual collectors and books-as-memory readers are mostly the same person framed differently. I’m comfortable folding.”
- Riley’s Goodreads-churn vote: “These are real people but they’re a sub-segment of the books-as-memory people. They’ve already validated the pain by leaving Goodreads. They prove the segment but don’t define it.”
- Surprise: nobody voted for book club coordinators despite Riley’s network advantage in that segment. Confirms that distribution access does not equal product-market-fit.
Decision Record
Decision: Brainshelf’s target customer for Foundation Sprint Basics is people who read 25 or more books a year and treat their personal library as memory rather than identity.
Decider: Jamie (founder, PM)
Decider rationale: “Books-as-memory readers (25+ books/year). Reading is a personal practice for these people, not a social one. That’s the customer Brainshelf serves.”
Alternatives explicitly considered and rejected:
- Active social readers (rejected: well-served by Goodreads; we can’t out-Goodreads Goodreads)
- Book club coordinators (rejected: distribution access does not equal product-market-fit)
- Romance / genre readers (rejected: high volume but not the books-as-memory framing)
- “Book hoarders” (rejected: subset of books-as-memory; not distinct enough to be its own segment)
- Spreadsheet trackers (rejected: too small a niche)
Confidence: High. Three of four voters aligned independently; Decider rationale matches the customer interview synthesis. The team will not re-vote on this during the sprint without explicit invalidation evidence.
Signed: Jamie (Decider), 2026-05-13 09:30 PT
Decider Checkpoint
Decider sign-off required before Basics continues to Important Problem.
- Jamie confirms the target customer decision will hold for the remainder of the sprint.
- Jamie acknowledges what was chosen against (social readers, book club coordinators, romance/genre, hoarders, spreadsheet trackers).
- Sam, Alex, Riley confirm they can commit to designing for this customer for Day 1 PM Differentiation.
- Jamie names the revisit condition: re-vote only if Day 1 PM differentiation cannot find a coherent position for this customer segment.