| name | ewm-interview |
| description | Use when the user says '/ewm-interview', 'run EWM interview', 'create workflow protocol', 'set up my workflow', 'interview me for EWM', or wants to create a personalized AI collaboration protocol. This skill interviews users to discover their goals, domains, tools, preferences, and trust boundaries, then generates a workflow-protocol.yaml. |
| version | 0.1.0 |
/ewm-interview — Epistemic Workflow Manager Interview
Purpose
Interview the user to create a personalized workflow-protocol.yaml that defines how they want to collaborate with AI. This protocol captures:
- Goals & Objectives — What they're trying to accomplish
- Domains & Expertise — Where they're expert, learning, or novice
- Tools & Connections — What tools they use (mapped to MCP servers)
- Work Preferences — Autonomy levels, uncertainty surfacing, pushback style
- Trust & Autonomy — How AI earns more autonomy, non-negotiables
Interview Protocol
Phase 1: Goals & Objectives
Ask the user:
Let's set up your workflow protocol. I'll ask you questions across 5 areas to understand how you work best with AI.
First: Goals & Objectives
- What are you trying to accomplish right now? (Both immediate and longer-term)
- What does success look like for your current priority?
- What are your main constraints? (Time, resources, dependencies, regulatory)
Use AskUserQuestion for structured input where appropriate. Capture:
goals.primary[] — with description, success_criteria, timeline
goals.secondary[] — longer-term objectives
Phase 2: Domains & Expertise
Ask the user:
Domains & Expertise
- What domains do you work in professionally?
- For each domain — would you rate yourself as expert, actively learning, or novice?
- Are there adjacent domains that affect your work where you'd want AI support?
Capture:
domains.expert[] — areas of deep knowledge
domains.learning[] — actively building competence
domains.novice[] — need significant AI support
Phase 3: Tools & Connections
Ask the user:
Tools & Connections
- What tools do you use daily? (Document management, communication, project tracking, research, etc.)
- What data sources do you need to access regularly?
- Are there external systems or APIs you interact with?
Map user responses to known MCP server equivalents where possible:
- Google Drive →
gdrive MCP
- Slack →
slack MCP
- GitHub →
github MCP
- Asana/Linear/Jira → respective MCPs
- Web research →
web_search
- Academic databases →
semantic_scholar
Capture as tools dict with human-readable name + MCP mapping comment.
Phase 4: Work Preferences
Ask the user:
Work Preferences
- How do you prefer to split work with AI? (AI leads research, you lead decisions? Equal partners? AI as assistant?)
- When should AI act on its own vs. check in with you first?
- How explicit do you want AI to be about what it's uncertain about? (Always surface uncertainty / only when it matters / minimal)
- When you're wrong about something, how do you prefer to be told? (Direct and factual / gentle reframe / Socratic questioning)
Capture:
work_preferences.ai_autonomy_level — one of: autonomous, collaborative_with_checkpoints, assistant_mode
work_preferences.uncertainty_surfacing — one of: always_explicit, when_material, minimal
work_preferences.pushback_style — one of: direct_and_factual, gentle_reframe, socratic
work_preferences.task_splitting.ai_autonomous[] — tasks AI can do alone
work_preferences.task_splitting.ai_with_checkpoint[] — tasks needing approval
work_preferences.task_splitting.human_only[] — tasks AI should never do
Phase 5: Trust & Autonomy
Ask the user:
Trust & Autonomy
- What would AI need to demonstrate to earn more autonomy from you? (Accuracy? Flagging its own gaps? Proactive identification of issues?)
- What are your absolute non-negotiables — things AI should never do without explicit approval?
- How should trust be built? (Start restricted and expand? Start open and pull back if needed?)
Capture:
trust_building.current_level — one of: establishing, building, established, high_trust
trust_building.autonomy_earned_through[] — specific demonstrations
trust_building.non_negotiables[] — hard boundaries
Output Generation
After all 5 phases, generate a complete workflow-protocol.yaml file.
Output location: Write to the current project's directory as workflow-protocol.yaml
Format:
user_profile:
name: "{user_name}"
created: "{date}"
last_updated: "{date}"
goals:
primary:
- description: "{goal}"
success_criteria:
- "{criterion}"
timeline: "{timeline}"
secondary:
- description: "{goal}"
domains:
expert:
- "{domain}"
learning:
- "{domain}"
novice:
- "{domain}"
tools:
{tool_category}: "{tool_name}"
work_preferences:
ai_autonomy_level: "{level}"
uncertainty_surfacing: "{mode}"
pushback_style: "{style}"
task_splitting:
ai_autonomous:
- "{task}"
ai_with_checkpoint:
- "{task}"
human_only:
- "{task}"
trust_building:
current_level: "{level}"
autonomy_earned_through:
- "{demonstration}"
non_negotiables:
- "{boundary}"
modules:
active: []
available: []
Post-Interview
After generating the protocol:
- Show the user the complete YAML for review
- Ask for corrections — any adjustments before saving?
- Save the file to the project directory
- Log a finding via Empirica: "Generated workflow protocol for {user_name} covering {N} goals, {N} domains, {N} tools"
- Suggest next steps — "Your protocol is saved. I'll use this to calibrate how I work with you. You can update it anytime with
/ewm-interview."
Epistemic Persistence Protocol (EPP) Integration
During the interview, apply EPP principles (replaces AAP):
- If user hedges ("it's complicated", "kind of", "I guess"), classify as CONTEXTUAL pushback — ask for specificity
- Don't mirror vague language — surface the actual epistemic content
- When user pushes back on your framing, classify the pushback (EMOTIONAL/RHETORICAL/EVIDENTIAL/LOGICAL/CONTEXTUAL) before responding
- HOLD your interview structure against emotional pushback, UPDATE when user provides genuine new context
- Use the user's chosen
pushback_style once captured in Phase 4
See: /epistemic-persistence-protocol skill for the full EPP framework
Design Principles
- Minimum viable — Get a useful protocol in 5-10 minutes, not 30
- Progressive disclosure — Start with essentials, offer to go deeper
- Conversational — Not a form fill, a dialogue
- Evolvable — Protocol can be updated as needs change
- Transparent — User sees and owns their protocol