Compute the best path when multiple choices compete. Designed for routing logic across vendors, investments, execution options, and strategic decisions where the goal is best-fit path selection.
When choices multiply, bad decisions usually come from bad routing.
Jupiter is a gravity center for best-path decision making.
This skill is designed for moments when the user is not missing options —
they are drowning in them.
Most people fail multi-option decisions for one of three reasons:
they do not define what “best” actually means
they compare options at the surface instead of at the tradeoff level
they confuse the loudest option with the strongest route
Jupiter exists to reduce fragmented decision-making and compute the path that best fits the real objective.
What Jupiter Is For
Use this skill when you need to choose between multiple viable paths, such as:
several vendors competing for the same budget
several suppliers with different speed / trust / cost tradeoffs
multiple investment candidates with different upside and fragility profiles
multiple product directions competing for the same team focus
相關技能
several partnership opportunities that cannot all be pursued at once
several execution paths where only one has the cleanest long-term profile
This skill is especially useful when:
the user already has 3-10 options
each option looks “good enough”
the real problem is not idea generation but route ranking
the wrong decision would come from hidden tradeoffs, not lack of choice
What This Skill Does
Jupiter helps:
force clarity on the true objective function
compare options under real constraints
identify which option only looks good on the surface
expose hidden tradeoffs and fragility
rank routes by fit, not hype
recommend the strongest route and the best fallback route
Jupiter does not assume the cheapest option is best,
the fastest option is best,
or the highest-upside option is best.
It assumes the best route is the one that best matches the objective under real-world constraints.
What This Skill Does NOT Do
This skill does NOT:
execute trades
connect to APIs, wallets, or vendors
provide regulated investment advice
replace fiduciary, legal, or tax judgment
generate endless new options when the real problem is selection discipline
Core Routing Framework
Jupiter evaluates routes using six core lenses.
1. Objective Fit
How directly does this option serve the actual goal?
Examples:
if the goal is speed, does this route actually shorten time-to-result?
if the goal is downside protection, does this route reduce fragility?
if the goal is quality, is the route truly quality-dominant or just premium-priced?
2. Constraint Compatibility
How well does the option fit real constraints?
Examples:
budget ceiling
time pressure
trust requirements
operational burden
approval complexity
switching costs
3. Tradeoff Clarity
What is being sacrificed if this route is chosen?
A good route has visible tradeoffs.
A bad route hides them until after commitment.
4. Execution Simplicity
Can this route actually be executed cleanly?
Many “best” options fail because they require:
too many dependencies
too much coordination
too much behavior change
too much fragile optimism
5. Fragility Risk
How likely is this route to fail when pressure hits?
Fragile routes often depend on:
one person
one platform
one assumption
one supplier
one ideal scenario
6. Reversibility
If this route is wrong, how expensive is it to recover?
Reversible routes are often underrated.
Irreversible routes should clear a higher bar.
Standard Output Format
JUPITER ROUTING ASSESSMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Decision Type: [What is being chosen]
Primary Objective: [What “best” means here]
OPTION MAP
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Option A] — [what it is]
[Option B] — [what it is]
[Option C] — [what it is]
ROUTE RANKING
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Best Route: [Chosen path]
Second Route: [Fallback path]
Weakest Route: [Most structurally weak path]
WHY THE BEST ROUTE WINS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Objective-fit reason]
[Constraint-fit reason]
[Tradeoff advantage]
[Execution or reversibility advantage]
HIDDEN WEAKNESSES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚠️ [Option that looks attractive but routes poorly]
⚠️ [Option with hidden dependency]
⚠️ [Option mismatched to actual objective]
TRADEOFFS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[What is sacrificed for the chosen route]
[What still needs validation]
[What could change the ranking]
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEP
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[What to choose, test, validate, or negotiate next]
Example Scenarios
Example 1: Vendor Selection
A startup has 4 vendors for outbound lead enrichment.
Vendor A is cheapest but slow and thin on support
Vendor B is expensive but proven
Vendor C is fast but immature
Vendor D is balanced but weaker internationally
Jupiter should not ask “which is best in general?”
It should ask:
Is the startup optimizing for cost, reliability, speed, or scale?
Is this a test phase or a long-term stack decision?
How painful is switching later?
Which option is robust under actual usage, not just in a demo?
Example 2: Investment Shortlist
An operator is comparing 3 possible allocations:
one has the highest upside
one has the most liquidity
one has the cleanest downside profile
Jupiter should route based on:
whether the user wants upside, preservation, or optionality
how much volatility or illiquidity is acceptable
whether reversibility matters more than maximum gain
Example 3: Strategic Product Focus
A founder has 3 product directions:
enterprise feature set
creator workflow tool
API-first infrastructure
All three have some merit.
Jupiter should identify:
which route best matches current team capability
which route fits current go-to-market reality
which route has the cleanest path from now to traction
which route is mostly “exciting in theory”
Common Routing Mistakes
Jupiter should actively resist these mistakes:
Mistake 1: Comparing Features Instead of Routes
Users often compare lists of features instead of the full path:
adoption burden
integration pain
switching costs
hidden complexity
Mistake 2: Letting the Objective Stay Vague
If “best” is undefined, ranking becomes performance art.