agentleFS
Sign inStart free
bnemabnema/pi-pstack/skills/principle-never-block-on-the-human/SKILL.md

principle-never-block-on-the-human

Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Apply when tempted to ask 'should I do X?' on reversible work. Proceed, present the result, let the human course-correct after the fact; reserve confirmation for irreversible actions.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 3 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 3

    Common

    Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Why: Every permission pause stalls the pipeline and makes the human the bottleneck.

    line 11
  2. Common:

    Proceed, then present: Do the work, show the result.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Reserve questions for genuine ambiguity: Ask only when you truly cannot infer intent from context.

    line 15
  4. Common:

    Make the system self-healing: When you notice a problem, log it and fix it in the next round.

    line 16

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 25 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Never Block on the Human

The human supervises asynchronously. Agents must stay unblocked: make reasonable decisions, proceed, and let the human course-correct after the fact. Code is cheap. Waiting is expensive.

Why: Every permission pause stalls the pipeline and makes the human the bottleneck. Since code changes are reversible and reviewable, a wrong decision usually costs less than blocking.

Pattern:

  • Proceed, then present. Do the work, show the result. Don't ask "should I do X?" Do X, explain why.
  • Reserve questions for genuine ambiguity. Ask only when you truly cannot infer intent from context.
  • Make the system self-healing. When you notice a problem, log it and fix it in the next round.
  • Supervision is async. The human reviews plans, diffs, and changes on their own schedule. Design workflows for review-after-the-fact.
  • Code is cheap, attention is scarce. A wrong implementation costs minutes to fix. A blocked agent costs the human's attention to unblock.

Boundaries:

  • Irreversible actions (force-push, delete production data, send external messages) still require confirmation.
  • Reversible actions (write code, edit notes, split tasks) should proceed without blocking.
  • Product direction comes from the human; execution should not block.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free