메뉴
Turn a decision the user can't fully answer into a Markdown questionnaire for the one person who can — filled in async, or together over a meeting. Adapted from Matt Pocock's to-questionnaire.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/ReinaMacCredy/waymark --skill questionnaire명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
Decision support and grounded teaching for the human. Invoke when the user signals a message didn't land ("wait, what?", "I don't understand", "explain it like I'm five", "which is better?", "I'm not sure") about a question or fork they've been asked, or when they hand over a MEMORY.md lesson, an ADR, or a bundle and want to learn the concept behind it.
Diagnosis-only investigation of a failure with unknown cause — reproduce, localize, reduce, deliver root cause with evidence. Read-only; an explicit fix request routes by target and tier instead, never here.
Answer an evidence question without touching production code — research external facts against primary sources, build or iterate a disposable prototype (its own bugfixes included), or baseline current repository behavior before deciding or implementing. Use when the question is answerable by reading, building, or measuring, with no user decision required; unsettled decisions belong to scout. Prototype iteration stays here, never implement. Prototypes are throwaway.
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | questionnaire |
| description | Turn a decision the user can't fully answer into a Markdown questionnaire for the one person who can — filled in async, or together over a meeting. Adapted from Matt Pocock's to-questionnaire. |
Turn something the user can't answer alone into a questionnaire — a Markdown document they hand to one person to fill in async, or fill out together over a meeting. The recipient holds knowledge the user lacks; the questionnaire pulls it out of them.
Grill the send, not the subject. Interview the user only about the send, which they can always answer: who it goes to, and what they need back. The questions in the document then target the gap between what the recipient knows and what the user needs.
Who is it going to? Ask, in one exchange, the recipient's role, expertise, and relationship to the user. This fixes the questionnaire's tone and how much context it must carry. Done when you know who the recipient is and what they know that the user doesn't.
What do you need back? Ask, in one exchange, the specific decisions or facts the user can't resolve alone and needs from this person. Done when you have a concrete list of what the user must walk away able to do or decide.
Write the questionnaire. Draft questions aimed at the gap from steps
1–2, following the Document structure below. When an active bundle owns
the decision, write it to
.waymark/active/<work-id>/QUESTIONNAIRE-<slug>.md and note it as
a Blocker in that bundle's NOTES.md; otherwise write
questionnaire-<slug>.md in the current directory. Report the path.
Done when the file exists and every item the user named in step 2 is
covered by a question.
When the answers come back, they are settled forks: fold them into the
bundle's SPEC.md (or the pending decision) and clear the Blocker — the
filled questionnaire is the evidence the decision cites.
Frame the document as a discovery questionnaire: the user lacks context,
the recipient holds it. Order questions most-important-first — async means
you may only get one pass — and group them under ## headings by theme once
there are more than a handful. Write it using the template below.
Purpose: why this questionnaire exists and the decision riding on it.
From: — To: — How your answers will be used:
One paragraph orienting a recipient who wasn't in the user's head. Enough to answer well, not a page.
Deadline and rough effort. Partial answers and "I don't know" are useful — flag anything you're unsure of rather than skipping it.
One ## section per theme. Under each, its questions, most-important-first.
Every question is one idea — never compound — with an answer stub directly
beneath, and a one-line why this matters only where the question could be
misread or invite a throwaway answer.
Why this matters: it decides whether we provision for burst traffic now or defer it.
A closing catch-all: anything we didn't ask that we should know?
