agentleFS
synaptiaisynaptiai/agent-capability-standard/skills/inquire/SKILL.md

inquire

Skill6 starsChanged 14 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Request clarification when input is ambiguous. Use when user request has missing parameters, conflicting interpretations, or insufficient constraints for reliable execution.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Check for conflicting interpretations

    line 40
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not make assumptions - the purpose is to ask, not to guess

    line 201
  3. Distinctive:

    If confidence < 0.3, consider returning empty questions (input may be clear enough)

    line 203
  4. Distinctive:

    Never include sensitive data in question options

    line 204
  5. Very specific:

    Never use inquire after execute - clarify BEFORE acting

    line 218
  6. Very specific:

    Avoid chaining multiple inquire calls - combine questions into one request

    line 219
  7. Very specific:

    Don't use with mutate in the same step - inquire is read-only

    line 220

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Intent

Generate targeted clarifying questions when a user request is ambiguous or underspecified, enabling the agent to gather missing information before committing to an action.

Success criteria:

  • Questions target specific missing parameters or ambiguous interpretations
  • Each question provides bounded answer options when applicable
  • Confidence score reflects actual ambiguity level
  • Evidence anchors reference the specific ambiguous elements

Compatible schemas:

  • schemas/output_schema.yaml
  • reference/capability_ontology.yaml#/inquire

Inputs

ParameterRequiredTypeDescription
ambiguous_inputYesanyThe underspecified request or goal to clarify
contextNoobjectPrevious conversation or domain context for better question generation
max_questionsNointegerMaximum clarifying questions to generate (default: 3)

Inputs not listed here are outside the capability's contract: a workflow step that binds them gets W604 (STANDARD v1.1 §5.5).

Procedure

  1. Analyze the input: Examine the ambiguous_input for completeness
    • Identify required parameters for the likely intended action
    • Check for conflicting interpretations
    • Note any implicit assumptions that need validation
  2. Categorize ambiguity types: Classify what's unclear
    • Missing parameters: Required information not provided
    • Conflicting interpretations: Multiple valid ways to interpret the request
    • Constraint gaps: Boundaries or limits not specified
    • Domain uncertainty: Unclear which domain or scope applies
  3. Generate clarifying questions: For each ambiguity, formulate a question
    • Target specific missing information
    • Provide bounded options when possible (2-4 choices)
    • Frame questions to elicit actionable answers
    • Prioritize questions by impact on execution
  4. Ground claims: Attach evidence anchors to the ambiguity analysis
    • Reference specific phrases or words that are ambiguous
    • Link to context that informed the interpretation
    • Format: input:phrase, context:field, or inference:reason
  5. Format output: Structure results according to the output contract
  6. Assess confidence: Rate how confident you are that clarification is needed
    • High confidence (0.8-1.0): Clear missing required parameters
    • Medium confidence (0.5-0.8): Ambiguous but could proceed with assumptions
    • Low confidence (0.0-0.5): Probably clear enough, clarification optional

Output Contract

Return a structured object:

questions:
  - question: "Which database should this operation target?"
    parameter: "target_database"
    options: ["production", "staging", "development"]
  - question: "Should this include archived records?"
    parameter: "include_archived"
    options: ["yes", "no"]
ambiguity_analysis:
  missing_parameters: ["target_database", "date_range"]
  conflicting_interpretations:
    - interpretation: "Query all users"
      confidence: 0.6
    - interpretation: "Query only active users"
      confidence: 0.4
  confidence_without_clarification: 0.3
confidence: 0.85  # How confident we are that clarification is needed
evidence_anchors: ["input:users", "context:previous_query_was_active_only"]
assumptions: []  # No assumptions made - we're asking for clarification

Field Definitions

FieldTypeDescription
questionsarrayClarifying questions with optional bounded answers
questions[].questionstringThe clarifying question text
questions[].parameterstringWhat parameter this question resolves
questions[].optionsarraySuggested answers if the question has bounded options
ambiguity_analysisobjectAnalysis of what makes the input ambiguous
ambiguity_analysis.missing_parametersarrayParameters required but not provided
ambiguity_analysis.conflicting_interpretationsarrayDifferent valid interpretations
ambiguity_analysis.confidence_without_clarificationnumberHow confident we could be if we just guessed
confidencenumber0.0-1.0 confidence that clarification is needed
evidence_anchorsarrayReferences to ambiguous elements
assumptionsarrayAssumptions made (typically empty for inquire)

Examples

Example 1: Ambiguous API Request

Input:

ambiguous_input: "Update the user's email"
context:
  recent_topic: "user management"
  available_users: 150
max_questions: 3

Output:

questions:
  - question: "Which user's email should be updated?"
    parameter: "user_id"
    options: []  # Open-ended - too many users to list
  - question: "What should the new email address be?"
    parameter: "new_email"
    options: []
  - question: "Should this send a verification email to the new address?"
    parameter: "send_verification"
    options: ["yes", "no", "only if production"]
ambiguity_analysis:
  missing_parameters: ["user_id", "new_email"]
  conflicting_interpretations: []
  confidence_without_clarification: 0.1
confidence: 0.95
evidence_anchors: ["input:the user's", "input:email"]
assumptions: []

Evidence pattern: The phrase "the user's" indicates a specific user is intended but not identified. "email" is ambiguous - could mean view, update, or verify.


Example 2: Multiple Valid Interpretations

Input:

ambiguous_input: "Show me the report"
context:
  available_reports: ["sales", "inventory", "user_activity"]
  last_viewed_report: "sales"
max_questions: 2

Output:

questions:
  - question: "Which report would you like to see?"
    parameter: "report_type"
    options: ["sales", "inventory", "user_activity"]
  - question: "For what time period?"
    parameter: "date_range"
    options: ["today", "this week", "this month", "custom range"]
ambiguity_analysis:
  missing_parameters: ["report_type", "date_range"]
  conflicting_interpretations:
    - interpretation: "Show sales report (last viewed)"
      confidence: 0.5
    - interpretation: "Show most recently generated report"
      confidence: 0.3
    - interpretation: "Show all available reports"
      confidence: 0.2
  confidence_without_clarification: 0.5
confidence: 0.7
evidence_anchors: ["input:the report", "context:available_reports:3", "context:last_viewed:sales"]
assumptions: []

Evidence pattern: "the report" implies a specific report but context shows 3 options. Recent history (sales) provides a weak signal.

Verification

  • Output contains at least one question when confidence > 0.5
  • Each question has a non-empty parameter field
  • Options array is provided for bounded-choice questions
  • Evidence anchors reference specific input elements
  • Confidence is justified by ambiguity analysis

Verification tools: None beyond allowed tools

Safety Constraints

  • mutation: false
  • requires_checkpoint: false
  • requires_approval: false
  • risk: low

Capability-specific rules:

  • Do not make assumptions - the purpose is to ask, not to guess
  • Limit questions to max_questions to avoid overwhelming users
  • If confidence < 0.3, consider returning empty questions (input may be clear enough)
  • Never include sensitive data in question options

Composition Patterns

Commonly follows:

  • critique - After identifying issues with a request, inquire resolves them
  • receive - After receiving a new request that needs clarification

Commonly precedes:

  • receive - After inquiring, wait for user's clarification response
  • integrate - Merge clarification into the original request
  • plan - Once clarified, proceed to planning

Anti-patterns:

  • Never use inquire after execute - clarify BEFORE acting
  • Avoid chaining multiple inquire calls - combine questions into one request
  • Don't use with mutate in the same step - inquire is read-only

Workflow references:

  • See reference/workflow_catalog.yaml#clarify_intent for the complete clarification workflow

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.