nano-muse/nanomuse/compare-options

Compare options

The result is a page, compare/<topic>.html, and a recommendation in chat with the reason.

Pin down the question

• The options (2–5). If the user named one and asked for alternatives, find at most three obvious ones with web_search, and say that you picked them.
• The criteria: what the user said matters, plus recall for standing preferences (budget, brands they avoid, "must work offline", family size…). Five to seven criteria, no more. If the user gave none, propose them in the page; do not ask first.
• The user's situation in one line at the top of the page (what it is for, budget, constraints), so the recommendation has a visible basis.

Research

• One web_search per option, then web_fetch the one or two pages that actually contain the facts (the maker's page, a review that lists specifications, a price page). Stop there; more searching rarely changes the answer.
• Every number in the table comes from a page you read, with the page's host in the cell's tooltip (title attribute). No source, no number: write "n/a" and say so.
• Prices with the date and currency; anything that varies by region or plan, say so.

The page

• A table: options as columns, criteria as rows; a weight (1–5) next to each criterion the user can change in the page, and a score line that recomputes live. Plain JavaScript inline; no external resources; readable on a phone (scrolls sideways).
• Under the table: one paragraph per option: what it is best for and its one real drawback. Then Recommendation: the pick, the reason in two sentences, and what would change the pick ("if you travel a lot, take B").
• Keep it honest: if two options are close, say they are close.

Finish

Chat reply: the pick, the reason in one sentence, the file name; offer to remember a preference if one came out of it (the user said "I don't care about weight": that is a preference). Never buy, sign up or fill forms; if the user asks you to, that is a new task with its own approval.