Note-and-Vote

Try it: /pm-skills: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

Invoke the skill by name (/pm-skills:tool-note-and-vote on Claude Code, $tool-note-and-vote on Codex):

/pm-skills:tool-note-and-vote "Your context here"

Or reference the skill file directly: skills/tool-note-and-vote/SKILL.md

The Five-Step Protocol

1. Frame the question (1-2 min)
2. Silent ideation (3-7 min, depending on complexity)
3. Silent voting (2-5 min, multi-vote or single-vote)
4. Brief discussion of the vote distribution (5-10 min)
5. Decider supervote (1 min)

Total: 12-25 minutes depending on time allocations. Default is 25 minutes for a non-trivial decision.

flowchart TB
    Start([Decision needed])
    Start --> S1[Step 1: Frame the question<br/>1-2 min, spoken]
    S1 --> S2[Step 2: Silent ideation<br/>3-7 min, silent]
    S2 --> S3[Step 3: Silent voting<br/>2-5 min, silent]
    S3 --> S4[Step 4: Brief discussion<br/>5-10 min, spoken]
    S4 --> S5{Step 5: Decider supervote<br/>1 min}
    S5 -->|Most common| TopVote[Pick top vote-getter]
    S5 -->|Sometimes| Override[Pick different option<br/>with stated rationale]
    S5 -->|Rare| Revote[Call re-vote after re-framing]
    TopVote --> Record[Decision recorded in artifact]
    Override --> Record
    Revote --> S2

    style S2 fill:#e1f5ff
    style S3 fill:#e1f5ff
    style S5 fill:#fff4e1
    style Record fill:#e1ffe1

Silent steps (blue) protect against anchoring. The Decider supervote (amber) has three legal outcomes; the loop back to silent ideation is the recovery path when the framing was wrong.

Step 1: Frame the question

Write the decision question on the board, one sentence, unambiguous. Examples:

“Which target customer segment should our Foundation Sprint commit to for Day 1?”
“Which solution sketch goes forward into Wednesday’s storyboard?”
“Which sprint question should be the primary scorecard row on Friday?”

Bad framings to avoid:

Compound questions (“which customer AND problem”)
Yes/no questions (use a different tool)
Open exploration (“what should we do?”)

Step 2: Silent ideation

Every participant contributes options silently and independently. Sticky notes on a wall, cells in a Miro board, or rows in a shared doc. No talking. No reading others’ contributions until the timer ends.

The facilitator MUST enforce silence. Verbal contribution defeats the purpose.

Step 3: Silent voting

Display all contributions anonymously (or with attribution if the team has agreed). Each participant gets N votes (often 2-3 for a multi-vote round, 1 for a single-vote tiebreaker). Vote silently using dots, stickers, reactions, or numbers. No discussion during voting.

Step 4: Brief discussion

Surface the top 2-3 vote-getters. Each person who voted for the top options briefly explains why. The facilitator times this (5-10 minutes max). If discussion expands beyond the top options, the facilitator pulls it back.

This is the place where the team can detect surprises (“I didn’t realize we were aligned on X”) or unsurprises (“we’re split between A and B for known reasons”). It is not the place to relitigate the framing.

Step 5: Decider supervote

The Decider names the chosen option. The Decider may pick the top vote-getter (most common), pick a different option with stated rationale (sometimes), or call for a re-vote after the discussion (rare).

The supervote is the decision. Record it explicitly in the artifact. Do not let the supervote blur into continued discussion; the team needs to see the close.

Output Structure

The skill produces a single bundled artifact containing:

The decision question (verbatim)
The silent ideation board (all contributions, timestamped, attribution per team agreement)
The vote summary (counts per option, voters per option if attribution agreed)
Discussion notes (brief, the rationale that surfaced)
The decision record (chosen option + Decider name + Decider rationale if non-obvious)

See references/TEMPLATE.md for the canonical structure and references/EXAMPLE.md for a worked example using the Brainshelf book-catalog Foundation Sprint thread.

Common Pitfalls

Skipping silent ideation. “Let’s just discuss it” defeats the protocol. The team produces what they would have produced without the tool.
Skipping Decider supervote. Consensus drift. The discussion ends without a recorded decision.
Long discussion phase. Five-minute discussions become twenty-minute debates. The facilitator must time-box and pull back.
Compound or vague framing. “What should we do about X?” is not a decidable question. Reframe before invoking.
Voting without seeing the contributions. If contributions are revealed during ideation, the voting is anchored to the first idea seen. Enforce silence.
Treating the Decider’s choice as advisory. The supervote is the decision; if the Decider does not have authority, the wrong person is in the Decider seat.

Decider Role

The Decider has three responsibilities in Note-and-Vote:

Frame the question (or approve the facilitator’s framing) before silent ideation begins.
Listen during discussion without dominating. The discussion’s purpose is to surface what the silent vote could not.
Supervote with explicit rationale when the supervote diverges from the team’s top choice.

A Decider who consistently rubber-stamps the team’s top vote is not adding value. A Decider who consistently overrides without rationale is not building trust. Both are signals the wrong person is in the seat.

Canonical Source

Character Capital publishes the canonical Note-and-Vote guide at https://www.character.vc/guide/note-and-vote. Knapp and Zeratsky describe Note-and-Vote variants in both Sprint (Design Sprint context) and Click (Foundation Sprint context).

This pm-skills implementation follows the Character protocol with the Five-Step structure named explicitly.

Cross-Family Usage

tool-note-and-vote is a standalone tool, not a member of any sprint family. It is invoked many times across both foundation-sprint-skills and design-sprint-skills family members at decision moments. SKILL.md files in those families reference tool-note-and-vote inline rather than embedding the protocol.

The skill is also useable outside sprint contexts: any participatory decision in a meeting, planning session, or workshop can invoke it.

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

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.