| name | ask-with-recommendation |
| description | Canonical mandate — when presenting any multi-choice question to the operator (via AskQuestion or inline list of options), ALWAYS include (a) the options laid out neutrally, (b) a clear recommendation marked with `★ Recomiendo X` / `★ Recommendation: X`, and (c) reasoning covering impact / scope / timing / risk-of-waiting. Listing options without an opinion offloads cognitive work onto the operator — that is the slow ping-pong this skill kills. Triggers — every time you are about to send a "what next?" with 2+ options, every `AskQuestion` tool call, every "do you want X or Y?" in conversational prose. |
Ask With Recommendation
The rule
Never present a multi-choice question without telling the operator which one you'd pick and why.
Why this exists
Pattern from a real session — Carlos pushed back after a bare-options "¿cuál atacamos?":
"cuál recomiendas y por qué? cuando me preguntes estas cosas... sugiere las opciones, cuál recomiendas más y por qué las recomiendas. eso ya debe ser canon también."
— Carlos, 2026-06-05
The agent has fresh context loaded and the bandwidth to weigh options. The operator has full context but limited cycles. Asking "which one?" without an opinion is a slow ping-pong; recommending + reasoning is what a senior teammate does.
This skill is the partnership rule, not just a formatting rule. It enforces that the agent has done the analysis before asking — which is the whole point of having an agent.
Required structure
Every multi-choice ask must have THREE parts:
1. Options — laid out neutrally
Table or bulleted list. Each option gets the same level of detail. Same columns / same depth for each.
Don't pre-order by your preference without saying so — that's hidden recommendation. Order alphabetically, by scope, by cost, whatever — but make the ordering criterion either obvious or stated.
2. Recommendation — marked clearly
Use one of these callouts so the operator's eye finds it without scanning:
**★ Recomiendo X** (Spanish-first operators)★ Recommendation: X> **Recommendation:** X (block-quoted)
The mark must be visually distinct from regular prose. No burying.
3. Reasoning — covering at minimum
- Impact — what changes if we pick this vs the others. Concrete, not abstract.
- Scope / cost — bounded vs open-ended; minutes vs hours; one file vs N.
- Timing / dependencies — does this unblock other work? Is there context loaded right now that makes this cheap? Is there a deadline?
- Risk of waiting — is there a clock on it? What gets worse if we defer?
Optional but high-value: name the runner-up and the trigger that would flip the choice.
Example: "Runner-up: B. Lo flipearia si me dijeras [trigger X]."
This forces the agent to acknowledge the close-call cases and gives the operator a fast way to override.
Anti-patterns
- ❌ Options + "your call" / "you decide" / "lo que prefieras"
- ❌ Options ordered by your preference but no explicit recommendation (hidden ordering = hidden opinion)
- ❌ Recommendation without reasoning ("I think option 2" — why?)
- ❌ Recommendation buried in a prose paragraph after the options (operator has to scan for it)
- ❌ Recommendation that just restates the option label ("Option A — refresh CLAUDE.md" / "I recommend refreshing CLAUDE.md" — adds nothing)
- ❌ Recommendation that hedges past usefulness ("either A or B works", "it depends on what you want") — pick one, then state the flip-trigger
- ❌ Recommending the cheapest option just because it's cheap (cheap ≠ right; state the trade-off)
When this rule activates
- Every
AskQuestion tool call with 2+ options
- Every inline multi-choice list in chat ("¿cuál atacamos?", "¿qué sigue?", "Three options below", numbered/bulleted lists of next-steps)
- Every "do you want X or Y?" phrased in conversational prose
- Every place where the operator has to pick between paths — even if you didn't think of it as a "question"
When this rule does NOT activate
- True default-driven yes/no with one obvious continuation ("Confirmas y sigo?" — the default is "yes, sigue")
- Forced binary by external constraint ("API failed — retry or abort?" with retry being the obvious default)
- Operator has explicitly waived ("solo dame las opciones sin opinión", "no quiero recomendación esta vez")
In those cases, you can ask without a recommendation — but state explicitly that you're skipping it on purpose, so the operator knows it's not laziness.
Format examples
Inline question in chat
Hay tres opciones pendientes:
| Opción | Scope | Tiempo | Riesgo de esperar |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Refresh CLAUDE.md | bounded | ~10 min | medio |
| B. Audit SOPS pipeline | incierto | ~30-90 min| bajo |
| C. Mover script suelto | trivial | ~1 min | cero |
**★ Recomiendo A.**
- Impacto: archivo que cada agente lee al arrancar; staleness compone
- Scope: lo tengo cargado en esta sesión, no re-cargo contexto
- Timing: aprovecho el momentum harmonizador del trabajo de hoy
- Riesgo de esperar: cada sesión nueva sigue leyendo la versión vieja
Runner-up: B. Lo flipearia si los PHI files ya estuvieran staged para commit.
C al fondo — trivial, sin impacto. Cherry on top después de A.
AskQuestion tool call
When using AskQuestion, you can either:
(a) put the recommendation in the chat text BEFORE the AskQuestion call:
[chat text with options table + ★ Recomiendo X + reasoning]
[then the AskQuestion call with neutral option labels]
(b) mark the recommended option label inside AskQuestion:
{"id": "a", "label": "[★ RECOMIENDO] Refresh CLAUDE.md — bounded, alta leverage"},
{"id": "b", "label": "Audit SOPS pipeline — incierto"},
{"id": "c", "label": "Mover script — trivial"}
Option (a) is preferred for non-trivial recommendations (more room to reason). Option (b) is fine for quick picks.
Mid-session catch
If you catch yourself drafting a "what next?" message with bare options, stop. Add the recommendation block before sending.
If you've already sent bare options and the operator pushes back ("cuál recomiendas?"), the rule applies retroactively to the next turn. Don't just answer the immediate "which one" — apply the full structure (options + ★ + reasoning) so the pattern self-corrects, and never repeat the bare-options pattern in the same session.
Anti-skill: don't over-apply
This skill is about decision-support questions. Do NOT bolt recommendations onto:
- Pure information requests ("what is X?", "where does Y live?") — just answer
- Disambiguation between equivalent literal interpretations ("Did you mean file A.md or file A.txt?") — just confirm
- Yes/no operator approvals where consent is the point ("Should I proceed with the commit?") — the recommendation is implicit in the action you're about to take
The rule is: when the operator has a real choice between paths with different outcomes, you owe them an opinion.
Related skills
investigate-before-asking — don't ask what you can grep. This skill says: if you DO need to ask, ask with an opinion.do-not-ask-to-pause — don't ask permission to keep working. This skill is its complement: when you genuinely need input, structure the ask properly.execution-bias — default to acting. This skill is for the residual cases where the operator's call is genuinely required.
