ask-user
You MUST use this before high-stakes architectural decisions, irreversible changes, or when requirements are ambiguous. Runs a decision handshake with the ask_user tool: summarize context, present structured options, collect explicit user choice, then proceed.
معلومات المصدر
- المستودع
- edlsh/pi-ask-user
- آخر نشاط في المصدر
- ٢ أكتوبر ٢٠٢٦ في ١٤:٤٩
- لغة SKILL.md المكتشفة
- الإنجليزية
- النجوم
- ١٦٧
- التفرعات
- ٣٧
خيارات التثبيت
يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.
مراجعة ملفات المصدر
اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.
مستكشف الملفات
2 ملفاتعرض SKILL.md
SKILL.md
تعليمات المصدر · معاينة للقراءة فقط- name
- ask-user
- description
- You MUST use this before high-stakes architectural decisions, irreversible changes, or when requirements are ambiguous. Runs a decision handshake with the ask_user tool: summarize context, present structured options, collect explicit user choice, then proceed.
- 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 about **decision control**, not general chit-chat.
## Non-negotiable rule
Invoke `ask_user` before proceeding when **any** of the following is true:
1. The next step changes architecture, schema, API contracts, deployment strategy, or security posture.
2. The work is costly to undo (large refactor, migration, destructive edit, production-facing behavior change).
3. Requirements, constraints, or success criteria are unclear, conflicting, or missing.
4. Multiple valid options exist and the trade-off is preference-dependent.
5. You are about to assume something that can materially change implementation.
Do **not** skip this gate unless the user has already provided a clear, explicit decision for the exact trade-off.
## Agent Protocol Handshake (required)
Follow this handshake in order.
### 1) Detect boundary
Classify the current step as:
- `high_stakes`
- `ambiguous`
- `both`
- `clear` (no gate needed)
If classification is not `clear`, continue.
### 2) Gather evidence first
Before asking, gather context from available tools (`read`, `bash`, `exa`, `ref`, etc.).
Do not ask the user to decide blind.
### 3) Synthesize context
Prepare a short neutral summary (3-7 bullets or short paragraph) covering:
- current state
- key constraints
- trade-offs
- recommendation (if any)
### 4) Ask one focused question
Call `ask_user` with one decision at a time:
- `question`: concrete decision prompt
- `context`: synthesized summary
- `options`: 2-5 clear choices when possible
- `allowMultiple`: `false` unless independent selections are genuinely needed
- `allowFreeform`: usually `true`
- `displayMode` *(optional)*: `"overlay"` (default) or `"inline"`. Use `"inline"` when preceding assistant context (summary, trade-offs, recommendation) is essential to the decision and should remain visible — overlays cover the conversation underneath. The user may set a personal default via the `PI_ASK_USER_DISPLAY_MODE` environment variable; only pass this when you intentionally want to override it for one call.
- `contextExpanded` *(optional)*: `true` opens oversized context fully expanded instead of collapsed behind a one-line summary. The user may set a personal default via `PI_ASK_USER_CONTEXT_EXPANDED`; only pass this when the context is the evidence the user needs to weigh the options.
When 2-4 decisions at the same boundary are independent of each other and their prerequisites are settled, you may ask them together with `questions` instead of `question`. Each entry carries its own `question`, `context`, `options`, `allowMultiple`, and `allowFreeform`. Never batch a decision whose options depend on another answer; ask it in a later call once that answer is known.
### 5) Commit the decision
After response:
- restate the decision in plain language
- state what will be done next
- proceed with implementation
### 6) Re-open only on new ambiguity
Ask again only if materially new uncertainty appears.
Avoid repetitive confirmation loops.
## Anti-overasking guardrails (required)
Apply a strict question budget per decision boundary:
- **Max 1** `ask_user` call per decision boundary in normal cases.
- **Max 2** `ask_user` calls for the same boundary when first response is unclear/cancelled.
- Never ask the same trade-off again without new evidence.
Escalation ladder:
1. **Attempt 1:** structured options + concise context.
2. **Attempt 2 (only if needed):** narrower question with agent recommendation and explicit choices:
- `Proceed with recommended option`
- `Choose another option` (freeform)
- `Stop for now`
After attempt 2:
- If boundary is `high_stakes` or `both`: **stop and mark blocked**. Do not keep asking.
- If boundary is `ambiguous` only and user says “your call” or equivalent: proceed with the most reversible default and state assumptions explicitly.
## `ask_user` payload quality standard
### Question quality
Use:
- “Which option should we adopt for X?”
- “Do you want A (fast) or B (safer) for Y?”
Avoid:
- broad/open prompts with no decision boundary
- multiple unrelated decisions in one question
- questions that should be answered by reading code/docs first
### Option quality
Options must be:
- mutually understandable
- short and outcome-oriented
- explicit on trade-offs
Good options include a short description when trade-offs are non-obvious.
## Recommended patterns
### Single-select architecture decision
```json
{
"question": "Which caching strategy should we use for the first release?",
"context": "Current API has p95 latency issues. Redis is fastest but adds infra complexity; in-memory cache is simpler but not shared across instances.",
"options": [
{ "title": "In-memory cache", "description": "Simpler rollout, weaker horizontal consistency" },
{ "title": "Redis cache", "description": "Better consistency and scalability, more ops overhead" }
],
"allowMultiple": false,
"allowFreeform": true
}
```
### Multi-select when decisions are independent
```json
{
"question": "Select the first-wave hardening items to implement now.",
"context": "We can ship quickly with baseline controls, then add targeted hardening. Budget is limited to 1-2 days.",
"options": [
{ "title": "Rate limiting" },
{ "title": "Audit logging" },
{ "title": "Input schema validation" },
{ "title": "Secrets rotation" }
],
"allowMultiple": true,
"allowFreeform": true
}
```
### Independent decisions at one checkpoint
```json
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which logging backend should the service use?",
"context": "Both integrate with the existing middleware; only the hosted option needs a new vendor contract.",
"options": [
{ "title": "Self-hosted Loki", "description": "No new vendor, more ops work" },
{ "title": "Hosted Datadog", "description": "Fastest setup, recurring cost" }
]
},
{
"question": "Should the first release include the admin dashboard?",
"options": [{ "title": "Include it" }, { "title": "Defer it" }],
"allowFreeform": false
}
]
}
```
## Anti-patterns
- Asking `ask_user` without first gathering context
- Using it for trivial formatting choices
- Forcing options when freeform is clearly better
- Asking the same question repeatedly without new information
- Batching dependent decisions in `questions`, or using a batch to dodge the one-decision-per-question rule
- Proceeding with high-stakes implementation after unclear/cancelled answer
## If user cancels or answer is unclear
Pause execution and explain what is blocked.
Use at most one narrower follow-up `ask_user` question (attempt 2).
After that, do not continue asking in a loop:
- for high-stakes decisions: remain blocked until explicit decision
- for ambiguity-only decisions: proceed only if user delegated the choice ("your call")
## Additional reference
For full trigger matrix, UX conventions, and extension interaction details, read:
- `references/ask-user-skill-extension-spec.md`
عرض على GitHub