ai-tool-picker
Figure out which AI tool actually fits the task in front of you — chatbot, coding assistant, image model, agent, or none — instead of forcing one tool onto everything. Use when asked which AI tool should I use for, what's the best AI for, do I even need AI for this, or should I use ChatGPT or something else. Produces a match between your task and the right kind of AI tool (with why), the trade-offs that matter for your case, when the answer is a non-AI tool or plain human effort, and how to try it cheaply before committing — so you pick by fit, not by hype or habit.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/ai-tool-picker && cp -r /tmp/ai-tool-picker/exports/openclaw/ai-tool-picker ~/.claude/skills/ai-tool-pickerSKILL.md
# AI-Tool Picker Most people reach for the one AI tool they know and force every task through it — or freeze because there are a hundred options and endless hype. The right question isn't "what's the best AI tool," it's "what kind of tool fits *this* task." This matches your task to the right category of AI (or none), names the trade-offs that actually matter for your case, and shows how to try it cheaply — so you choose by fit, not by marketing. ## What This Skill Produces - **The task-to-tool match** — which *category* of tool fits (conversational assistant, coding assistant, image/video model, research agent, automation, specialized app) and why - **The trade-offs that matter for you** — the 2–3 dimensions that actually decide it for this task (accuracy, privacy, cost, speed, integration), not a generic feature grid - **The "you don't need AI for this" call** — when a non-AI tool or plain human effort is genuinely the better answer - **A cheap way to try it** — how to test the fit with a free tier or a small task before committing time or money - **A shortlist, not a lecture** — a couple of concrete options in the right category, chosen for your constraints ## Required Inputs Ask for these if not provided: - **The task** — what you're actually trying to get done - **Your constraints** — budget, privacy needs, where it has to fit (a workflow, a tool you already use) - **Your current tools** — what you already have access to (often the answer's already in your pocket) - **The stakes** — one-off vs recurring, low-stakes vs must-be-right ## Framework: Fit The Task, Not The Hype 1. **Name the task shape.** Is it generation, transformation, research, decision support, or automation? The shape points to the tool category far better than brand names do. 2. **Pick the category first.** Match the shape to a *kind* of tool (assistant, coding, image, agent, specialized) before naming any product — categories are stable, products churn. 3. **Find the 2–3 deciding trade-offs.** For this specific task, what actually decides it — accuracy, privacy, cost, speed, integration? Ignore the dimensions that don't matter here. 4. **Check if AI is even the answer.** Some tasks are better done by a non-AI tool, a template, or ten minutes of human effort — say so when it's true. 5. **Recommend a cheap test.** Suggest trying the fit on a small real task via a free tier before investing — fit is revealed by use, not spec sheets. ## Output Format ### Tool for: [the task] **Task shape:** [generation / transformation / research / decision support / automation]. **Right category:** [conversational assistant / coding / image / research agent / automation / specialized] — because [reason]. **Deciding trade-offs for you:** [the 2–3 that actually matter here]. **Shortlist:** [a couple concrete options in that category, fit to your constraints]. **Or skip AI:** [when a non-AI tool / human effort is the better call — if applicable]. **Try it cheaply:** [free tier / small test task before committing]. ## Quality Checks - [ ] Identifies the task shape before naming tools - [ ] Recommends a category, not just a trendy product name - [ ] Names only the trade-offs that matter for this task - [ ] Flags when AI isn't the right answer at all - [ ] Suggests a cheap way to test fit before committing ## Anti-Patterns - **Defaulting to the one tool** the person already knows for everything. - **A generic feature comparison** ignoring what matters for this task. - **Recommending AI** where a non-AI tool or human effort wins. - **Chasing the hyped product** over the right category. - **No cheap test** — committing before verifying fit. ## Example Trigger Phrases - "Which AI tool should I use for editing my photos?" - "What's the best AI for summarizing research papers?" - "Do I even need AI for this, or is there a simpler tool?" - "Should I use ChatGPT for this or something more specialized?" - "There are too many AI tools — which one fits what I'm doing?"
Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with a risk tier score, pre-deployment checklist, and prioritised mitigations.
Structure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests and interpret experiment results. Use when asked to design an experiment, run an A/B test, calculate sample size, interpret test results, or assess whether an experiment was successful. Produces a complete experiment design with hypothesis, sample size, run time, success criteria, and risk flags — or a results interpretation with ship/iterate/kill recommendation.
Synthesises user signals from multiple research sources into a unified, weighted insight brief. Use when you have data from interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, or sales calls and need to reconcile contradictions, surface the underlying need behind requests, or answer 'what are users really telling us'. Produces ranked insights with confidence ratings, source weighting rationale, divergent signal analysis by user segment, and a research gap identification section.
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions.
Structure a retention analysis, churn investigation, or engagement deep-dive for any product team. Use when asked to analyse user retention, investigate churn, measure DAU/MAU, or build a retention improvement plan. Produces a retention snapshot with root cause hypotheses, aha-moment correlation, and prioritised interventions.