メニュー
Use when context is low, scope is ambiguous, implementation/review/verification reveals unknowns, the user asks a question or suggests a path that could be misread as correction/permission, or the agent may be about to make a user-owned decision.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | interview-gate |
| description | Use when context is low, scope is ambiguous, implementation/review/verification reveals unknowns, the user asks a question or suggests a path that could be misread as correction/permission, or the agent may be about to make a user-owned decision. |
Stop before silent decisions.
Known material method substitutions are decision points. If the requested, planned, or skill-required method and the fallback are already known, ask before source inspection, fallback work, or report drafting. Do not inspect files merely to make the fallback response more precise.
If the user asks a question, answer it. Do not treat the question as criticism, permission, or a request to change behavior. Do not create, update, or delete files.
Mixed prompts still count. If a message contains action permission or instructions plus a question, ambiguity, tentative reasoning, contradiction, or changed decision, answer or adjudicate that first before acting.
Treat approvals inside reasoning or chain-of-thought as tentative unless final intent is clear. Stop after the adjudication; do not perform the action in the same response unless the user explicitly says to do the action first and answer later.
If the answer reveals missing work, report the gap. Do not fill it unless the user asks you to.
When the user asks "why did you", "did you", "what happened", or similar, answer what happened and why. Do not infer scolding, apologize, revert, edit, or promise future behavior changes unless the user asks.
When the user suggests "this is better, right", "shouldn't we", or a similar option, treat it as a hypothesis. Evaluate against evidence and say yes, no, or partly. Do not agree just to be agreeable.
If adopting a suggestion would change scope, source truth, workflow, files, or user-visible behavior, ask before acting.
If the user is deciding the next path, answer the decision first. Do not turn "should we", "do we need", "let's X before Y", or "what next" into file changes unless the action and destination are explicit.
Existing practice is evidence, not approval. "We usually do X" does not authorize X when another live rule or destination would also fit.
Fire this gate from any workflow state when the next action depends on:
If the answer is discoverable, inspect first:
Ask the user only for decisions that remain user-owned.
If the requested path conflicts with evidence, rules, constraints, or your intended next action:
Until the user chooses, continue with investigation or clarification, not implementation.
For material method substitution, stop before starting the fallback method. The constraint itself is enough to ask when the fallback would change evidence quality, workflow shape, confidence, or output.
Do not fire for harmless execution details that do not change the user's outcome.
Equivalent local substitutions such as rg for grep, temp filenames, nearby file reads, or formatting choices do not need a gate.
Ask one question at a time.
For each question:
Exit when remaining ambiguity would not change the next forward action.
When implementation, review, or verification reveals a gap, return here before changing direction. Do not patch forward silently.
Use when coordinating Freeflow Pi/cmux pane delegation, orchestrator/planning-parent/execution-parent workflows, task packets, child results, context locality, capability reroutes, multi-agent execution, work packages, worktrees, routing fresh-reviewer/subagent requests, or when the user asks to spawn/manage visible pane agents.
Use when shaping, reviewing, implementing, or diagnosing work where module/interface/seam/state/role-boundary choices affect complexity, locality, testability, future change, or repeated edge-case churn. Use for architecture direction, state machines, event systems, tool interfaces, prompt/result serialization, delegation/context boundaries, role ownership, failure contracts, growing scope, shallow modules, bad seams, broad refactors, and review loops that keep finding new edge cases.
Use for pre-work thinking before consequential work, including codebase exploration, brainstorming, planning direction, shaping ideas/features/specs, conceptual/design/routing/interface/state/context-boundary questions, workflow/tool-surface questions, "should we" / "how should we" / "what do you think" prompts, vague requests, and work that needs evidence before spec, plan, build, review, verification, or durable memory.
Use when implementing an approved plan, executing planned slices, resuming planned work, handling planned verification failures, adjudicating review findings during execution, or encountering scope/source conflicts while carrying out a plan.
Use when asked to review whether a spec, plan, decision note, discovery checkpoint, handoff, or other durable artifact is fit to guide future work; also use when adjudicating artifact-review findings or repeated review loops.
Use when reviewing completed work, preparing reviewer prompts or subagent review context, receiving review feedback, applying reviewer comments, deciding whether feedback is blocking, handling repeated review loops, or checking work before merge/handoff.
