feat(skill): add ask-user decision gate profile

This commit is contained in:
Erik Kotsiuba
2026-04-24 20:46:39 +02:00
parent 3700dd65b2
commit 6d9cb5b7bf
2 changed files with 85 additions and 0 deletions
+2
View File
@@ -82,6 +82,8 @@ After installation, the package registers one tool: `ask_user`.
That is enough for the agent to gain this clarification capability. The extension already injects prompt guidance that encourages the agent to call `ask_user` when requirements are ambiguous or user preference matters, instead of guessing.
This package also includes an optional skill profile at `skills/ask-user/SKILL.md` (`ask-user-decision-gate`) for stricter decision-gate behavior in high-stakes or ambiguous boundaries.
You can still add your own agent instruction if you want to further reinforce when and how the tool should be used.
Use `type: "preview"` only when every option includes `preview` text for a dedicated preview pane. Descriptions alone are not enough.
+83
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
---
name: ask-user-decision-gate
description: "Use ask_user as a decision gate before high-stakes or ambiguous implementation choices."
metadata:
short-description: Decision gate for ambiguity and high-stakes choices
---
# Ask User decision gate
Use this skill to force explicit user alignment before consequential decisions.
This skill is for decision control, not general chat.
## Trigger
Classify the next step as one of:
- `high_stakes`
- `ambiguous`
- `both`
- `clear`
Use `ask_user` when the next step is ambiguous, preference-sensitive, or high-stakes and the user has not already made the decision explicitly.
### Treat as `high_stakes` when the next step changes:
- architecture, schema, API contract, deployment, or security posture
- production-facing behavior in a costly-to-undo way
- large refactors, migrations, or destructive edits
### Treat as `ambiguous` when:
- requirements or success criteria are missing/conflicting
- multiple valid options exist and the trade-off is preference-sensitive
- you would otherwise make a material assumption
## Handshake (required)
1. Gather evidence first from code/docs/tools.
2. Summarize neutral context (current state, constraints, trade-offs, recommendation).
3. Ask one focused `ask_user` decision question.
4. Restate the user decision and proceed explicitly with it.
5. Re-open only for materially new ambiguity.
## Question budget and escalation
- Max 1 `ask_user` call per decision boundary in normal cases.
- Max 2 calls for the same boundary if first answer is unclear/cancelled.
- Never re-ask the same trade-off without new evidence.
Attempt 2 (only if needed) must be narrower and include:
- `Proceed with recommended option`
- `Choose another option`
- `Stop for now`
After attempt 2:
- for `high_stakes` or `both`: stop as blocked until explicit decision
- for `ambiguous` only: if user delegates ("your call"), proceed with the most reversible default and state assumptions
## ask_user payload quality
- Ask one concrete decision at a time.
- Prefer 2-4 clear options (single-select by default).
- Use `multi` only when selections are truly independent.
- Keep option labels short and outcome-oriented.
- Include trade-off descriptions when non-obvious.
- Prefer non-`preview` questions when a free-form answer may be useful, since those include an internal `Type your own` option.
## Guardrails
- Do not ask before reading available context.
- Do not use for trivial formatting/style micro-decisions.
- Do not continue implementation after unclear high-stakes answers.
## Conflict rule
If this skill conflicts with implementation behavior or tests, the project contract wins:
1. `docs/contract.md`
2. `tests/*.test.ts`
3. this skill