ask-user
Skill182 starsChanged 13 days agoMITView on GitHub
You MUST use this before high-stakes architectural decisions, irreversible changes, or when requirements are ambiguous. Runs a decision handshake with the ask_user tool: summarize context, present structured options, collect explicit user choice, then proceed.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ScriptingApp/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- BennyKok/omg.devtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- collectiveai-team/boticatheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- garrytan/gbraintheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- nek1987/auto-agent-harnesstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- garrytan/gbrain★ 32ksame name
- BennyKok/omg.dev★ 554same name
- ScriptingApp/skills★ 16same name
- collectiveai-team/botica★ 9same name
- nek1987/auto-agent-harness★ 4same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Use this skill to force explicit user alignment before consequential decisions.
- Distinctive: line 24
Do not skip this gate unless the user has already provided a clear, explicit decision for the exact trade-off.
- Distinctive: line 28
Follow this handshake in order.
- Very specific: line 37
If classification is not clear, continue.
- Very specific: line 40
Before asking, gather context from available tools (read, bash, exa, ref, etc.).
- Distinctive: line 41
Do not ask the user to decide blind.
- Very specific: line 51
Call ask_user with one decision at a time:
- Distinctive: line 69
Ask again only if materially new uncertainty appears.
- Distinctive: line 70
Avoid repetitive confirmation loops.
- Distinctive: line 78
Never ask the same trade-off again without new evidence.
- Very specific: line 90
If boundary is high_stakes or both: stop and mark blocked.
- Very specific: line 91
If boundary is ambiguous only and user says “your call” or equivalent: proceed with the most reversible default and state assumptions …
- Very specific: line 181
Use at most one narrower follow-up ask_user question (attempt 2).
- Distinctive: line 182
After that, do not continue asking in a loop:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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.
Files
Ask User Decision Gate
Use this skill to force explicit user alignment before consequential decisions.
This skill is about decision control, not general chit-chat.
Non-negotiable rule
Invoke ask_user before proceeding when any of the following is true:
- The next step changes architecture, schema, API contracts, deployment strategy, or security posture.
- The work is costly to undo (large refactor, migration, destructive edit, production-facing behavior change).
- Requirements, constraints, or success criteria are unclear, conflicting, or missing.
- Multiple valid options exist and the trade-off is preference-dependent.
- You are about to assume something that can materially change implementation.
Do not skip this gate unless the user has already provided a clear, explicit decision for the exact trade-off.
Agent Protocol Handshake (required)
Follow this handshake in order.
1) Detect boundary
Classify the current step as:
high_stakesambiguousbothclear(no gate needed)
If classification is not clear, continue.
2) Gather evidence first
Before asking, gather context from available tools (read, bash, exa, ref, etc.).
Do not ask the user to decide blind.
3) Synthesize context
Prepare a short neutral summary (3-7 bullets or short paragraph) covering:
- current state
- key constraints
- trade-offs
- recommendation (if any)
4) Ask one focused question
Call ask_user with one decision at a time:
question: concrete decision promptcontext: synthesized summaryoptions: 2-5 clear choices when possibleallowMultiple:falseunless independent selections are genuinely neededallowFreeform: usuallytruedisplayMode(optional):"overlay"(default) or"inline". Use"inline"when preceding assistant context (summary, trade-offs, recommendation) is essential to the decision and should remain visible — overlays cover the conversation underneath. The user may set a personal default via thePI_ASK_USER_DISPLAY_MODEenvironment variable ordisplayModeinask-user.json; only pass this when you intentionally want to override it for one call.contextExpanded(optional):trueopens oversized context fully expanded instead of collapsed behind a one-line summary. The user may set a personal default viaPI_ASK_USER_CONTEXT_EXPANDEDorcontextExpandedinask-user.json; only pass this when the context is the evidence the user needs to weigh the options.
When 2-4 decisions at the same boundary are independent of each other and their prerequisites are settled, you may ask them together with questions instead of question. Each entry carries its own question, context, options, allowMultiple, and allowFreeform. A top-level question sent with questions is only a heading, never asked. Never batch a decision whose options depend on another answer; ask it in a later call once that answer is known.
5) Commit the decision
After response:
- restate the decision in plain language
- state what will be done next
- proceed with implementation
6) Re-open only on new ambiguity
Ask again only if materially new uncertainty appears. Avoid repetitive confirmation loops.
Anti-overasking guardrails (required)
Apply a strict question budget per decision boundary:
- Max 1
ask_usercall per decision boundary in normal cases. - Max 2
ask_usercalls for the same boundary when first response is unclear/cancelled. - Never ask the same trade-off again without new evidence.
Escalation ladder:
- Attempt 1: structured options + concise context.
- Attempt 2 (only if needed): narrower question with agent recommendation and explicit choices:
Proceed with recommended optionChoose another option(freeform)Stop for now
After attempt 2:
- If boundary is
high_stakesorboth: stop and mark blocked. Do not keep asking. - If boundary is
ambiguousonly and user says “your call” or equivalent: proceed with the most reversible default and state assumptions explicitly.
ask_user payload quality standard
Question quality
Use:
- “Which option should we adopt for X?”
- “Do you want A (fast) or B (safer) for Y?”
Avoid:
- broad/open prompts with no decision boundary
- multiple unrelated decisions in one question
- questions that should be answered by reading code/docs first
Option quality
Options must be:
- mutually understandable
- short and outcome-oriented
- explicit on trade-offs
Good options include a short description when trade-offs are non-obvious.
Recommended patterns
Single-select architecture decision
{
"question": "Which caching strategy should we use for the first release?",
"context": "Current API has p95 latency issues. Redis is fastest but adds infra complexity; in-memory cache is simpler but not shared across instances.",
"options": [
{ "title": "In-memory cache", "description": "Simpler rollout, weaker horizontal consistency" },
{ "title": "Redis cache", "description": "Better consistency and scalability, more ops overhead" }
],
"allowMultiple": false,
"allowFreeform": true
}Multi-select when decisions are independent
{
"question": "Select the first-wave hardening items to implement now.",
"context": "We can ship quickly with baseline controls, then add targeted hardening. Budget is limited to 1-2 days.",
"options": [
{ "title": "Rate limiting" },
{ "title": "Audit logging" },
{ "title": "Input schema validation" },
{ "title": "Secrets rotation" }
],
"allowMultiple": true,
"allowFreeform": true
}Independent decisions at one checkpoint
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which logging backend should the service use?",
"context": "Both integrate with the existing middleware; only the hosted option needs a new vendor contract.",
"options": [
{ "title": "Self-hosted Loki", "description": "No new vendor, more ops work" },
{ "title": "Hosted Datadog", "description": "Fastest setup, recurring cost" }
]
},
{
"question": "Should the first release include the admin dashboard?",
"options": [{ "title": "Include it" }, { "title": "Defer it" }],
"allowFreeform": false
}
]
}Anti-patterns
- Asking
ask_userwithout first gathering context - Using it for trivial formatting choices
- Forcing options when freeform is clearly better
- Asking the same question repeatedly without new information
- Batching dependent decisions in
questions, or using a batch to dodge the one-decision-per-question rule - Proceeding with high-stakes implementation after unclear/cancelled answer
If user cancels or answer is unclear
Pause execution and explain what is blocked.
Use at most one narrower follow-up ask_user question (attempt 2).
After that, do not continue asking in a loop:
- for high-stakes decisions: remain blocked until explicit decision
- for ambiguity-only decisions: proceed only if user delegated the choice ("your call")
Additional reference
For full trigger matrix, UX conventions, and extension interaction details, read:
references/ask-user-skill-extension-spec.md
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
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.

