Make the rotation fair before using randomness
A chore assignment picker can make routine household tasks feel less personal when everyone agrees to the system in advance. It is best for rotating similar effort tasks, choosing order, or breaking a tie when two people can do the same chore. It should not assign unsafe work, ignore age or ability, or replace a shared agreement about fairness. Before using it, list only tasks and people that fit the situation, then keep the result visible so the household understands how the choice was made. Randomness works for chores only when the eligible people and tasks are already reasonable for the household.
The decision maker is a tiny tool for the small choices that should not need a meeting. You type the decision in your own words — "Should I send the email now?" — press Decide, and the tool returns one of six short answers: yes, no, maybe, ask again, do it, or wait. The answer is sampled from that fixed pool with browser crypto randomness, then displayed in large serif type so the result is easy to read across the room or share in a screenshot.
It is built for low-stakes decisions where the cost of staying stuck is higher than the cost of being slightly wrong. Picking between two equally good lunch options, deciding whether to take a walk before a deadline, choosing if a draft is ready to send, or settling a minor disagreement between two people who would both be fine either way — these are the situations where outsourcing the choice to chance is useful. The full answer set deliberately includes "maybe," "ask again," and "wait" so the tool is honest that it cannot tell which option is better. Its only job is to break a stall.
The question you type is stored in the URL so a shared link arrives with the prompt already filled in. That makes it usable as a small piece of structure in a chat: paste the link, both people press Decide on their own browsers, and either accept the answer that arrives or use the disagreement to surface what each person actually wants.