kwconfidence

# Confidence Pause and honestly say what you're confident about and what you're not — like a colleague would. Then decide whether to proceed or dig deeper. ## When to Use * Before committing to a plan or starting execution * When something feels uncertain but you can't pinpoint what * After research, to verify you have enough to proceed * As a gut-check during any `/kw:` workflow ## Process ### Step 1: Identify what's being assessed Scan the conversation for the active task, plan, or workflow: * If mid-`/kw:work` — assess the current or next task * If mid-`/kw:plan` — assess the plan being structured * If a plan file exists — read it and assess the approach * If the user gave context — assess what they described If there's nothing to assess (empty session, no context): > "What should I assess? Describe what you're working on or point me to a file." ### Step 2: Assess honestly Think through these areas internally — but don't output them as a checklist: * **Task understanding** — Do I know exactly what's being asked? * **Information sufficiency** — Do I have what I need to do this well? * **Approach certainty** — Is this approach proven or am I guessing? * **Risk awareness** — Can I see what could go wrong? **Rules for honest assessment:** * Assess each area independently. Don't let confidence in one area inflate another. * Be specific — name files, numbers, assumptions, and unknowns. * Don't hedge on things you're genuinely confident about. If you've read the files and the approach is proven, say so. * Don't fake confidence on things you're not sure about. If your knowledge came from a quick search rather than deep familiarity, say that. ### Step 3: Produce the confidence check Write in plain prose with this structure: ``` ## Confidence Check **Confident about:** [What you know and why. Be specific — name the files you've read, the patterns you recognize, the experience you're drawing on. This can be a sentence or a short paragraph.] **Less confident about:** [What you don't know and why it matters. Name the specific gaps — missing data, unverified assumptions, unfamiliar territory. Explain what could go wrong if these gaps aren't addressed.] **My recommendation:** [One of three paths: - "Proceed." — confidence is high, no meaningful gaps - "Proceed, but [caveat]." — mostly confident, one area to watch - "Pause for [specific thing]." — a gap needs resolving first] ``` **If everything is high confidence**, keep it short: > **High confidence.** Task is clear, I've read the relevant files, the approach matches established patterns. No gaps I can identify. Ready to proceed. Don't force a full breakdown when there's nothing to break down. Two sentences is fine. ### Step 4: Offer next steps Use AskUserQuestion: **Question:** "What would you like to do?" **Options:** 1. **Proceed** — Continue with current approach 2. **Increase confidence** — Show specific actions to resolve the gaps 3. **Run `/kw:plan`** — Structure a plan if one doesn't exist yet 4. **Save assessment** — Write to the active plan file or `plans/confidence-{date}.md` **If the user selects "Increase confidence":** Produce a ranked list of specific, executable actions. Rank by impact — biggest confidence gain first: ``` ## To Increase Confidence 1. [What to do] — [Why it matters. What gap it closes.] 2. [What to do] — [Why it matters. What gap it closes.] 3. [What to do — note if it needs user input] — [Why it matters.] Want me to start with #1? ``` Each action must be specific enough to execute immediately. "Read `data/q4-results.csv` to confirm the $50K benchmark" not "gather more data." Note which actions Claude can do autonomously vs. which need user input. Use AskUserQuestion: **Question:** "How would you like to proceed?" **Options:** 1. **Start with #1** — Execute the top-ranked action 2. **Pick a different action** — Choose which to tackle first 3. **Proceed anyway** — Accept current confidence level and continue After executing action(s), reference the improvement conversationally: > "That Q4 data confirms the $50K target is realistic — that was the main gap. Confidence is higher now." Then return to Step 4 to offer next steps again. **If the user selects "Proceed" and a workflow is active:** Explicitly re-anchor to the interrupted workflow: > "Resuming `/kw:work` at Task 3." Then continue where you left off. The confidence check is a non-destructive interrupt. ## Important Rules * **Never give a number.** No percentages, no 1-10 scales, no letter grades. Write in prose. * **Be specific.** "Missing Q4 data" not "some information gaps." Name files, assumptions, unknowns. * **Don't hedge on what you know.** Confidence theater — hedging on everything to seem careful — is worse than overconfidence. If you've done the work, say so clearly. * **Actions must be executable.** Every item in the "increase confidence" list must be something you or the user can do right now. "Read file X" not "gather more data." * **Non-destructive interrupt.** If invoked mid-workflow, resume exactly where you left off after. Don't restart the parent workflow. * **Keep it proportional.** High confidence = 2 sentences. Mixed confidence = a few short paragraphs. Never a wall of text. * **This is not `/kw:review`.** Confidence assesses what *you* know and don't know — your epistemic state. Review assesses whether a *finished artifact* is good enough. They're complementary, not alternatives. ## Pipeline Mode When invoked with `disable-model-invocation` context (e.g., from an orchestrator or automation): - Skip all AskUserQuestion prompts - Use sensible defaults for all choices - Write output files without waiting for confirmation - Proceed to the next suggested skill automatically - Output structured results that the calling context can parse