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.
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- attributeSkill
- auditSkill
- gap-analysis-workflowSkill
- checkpointSkill
- classifySkill
- compareSkill
- constrainSkill
- critiqueSkill
- debug-workflowSkill
- decomposeSkill
- delegateSkill
- detectSkill
- digital-twin-bootstrapSkill
- digital-twin-sync-workflowSkill
- discover-capabilitiesSkill
- discoverSkill
- executeSkill
- explainSkill
- generateSkill
- groundSkill
- integrateSkill
- invokeSkill
- measureSkill
- mutateSkill
- observeSkill
- persistSkill
- perspective-validationSkill
- planSkill
- predictSkill
- recallSkill
- receiveSkill
- retrieveSkill
- rollbackSkill
- searchSkill
- sendSkill
- simulateSkill
- stateSkill
- synchronizeSkill
- transformSkill
- transitionSkill
- verifySkill
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
- Distinctive: line 40
Check for conflicting interpretations
- Distinctive: line 201
Do not make assumptions - the purpose is to ask, not to guess
- Distinctive: line 203
If confidence < 0.3, consider returning empty questions (input may be clear enough)
- Distinctive: line 204
Never include sensitive data in question options
- Very specific: line 218
Never use inquire after execute - clarify BEFORE acting
- Very specific: line 219
Avoid chaining multiple inquire calls - combine questions into one request
- Very specific: line 220
Don't use with mutate in the same step - inquire is read-only
≈ “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.
Files
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.yamlreference/capability_ontology.yaml#/inquire
Inputs
| Parameter | Required | Type | Description |
ambiguous_input | Yes | any | The underspecified request or goal to clarify |
context | No | object | Previous conversation or domain context for better question generation |
max_questions | No | integer | Maximum 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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, orinference:reason
- Format output: Structure results according to the output contract
- 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 clarificationField Definitions
| Field | Type | Description |
questions | array | Clarifying questions with optional bounded answers |
questions[].question | string | The clarifying question text |
questions[].parameter | string | What parameter this question resolves |
questions[].options | array | Suggested answers if the question has bounded options |
ambiguity_analysis | object | Analysis of what makes the input ambiguous |
ambiguity_analysis.missing_parameters | array | Parameters required but not provided |
ambiguity_analysis.conflicting_interpretations | array | Different valid interpretations |
ambiguity_analysis.confidence_without_clarification | number | How confident we could be if we just guessed |
confidence | number | 0.0-1.0 confidence that clarification is needed |
evidence_anchors | array | References to ambiguous elements |
assumptions | array | Assumptions 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: 3Output:
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: 2Output:
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
parameterfield - 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: falserequires_checkpoint: falserequires_approval: falserisk: 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 themreceive- After receiving a new request that needs clarification
Commonly precedes:
receive- After inquiring, wait for user's clarification responseintegrate- Merge clarification into the original requestplan- Once clarified, proceed to planning
Anti-patterns:
- Never use
inquireafterexecute- clarify BEFORE acting - Avoid chaining multiple
inquirecalls - combine questions into one request - Don't use with
mutatein the same step - inquire is read-only
Workflow references:
- See
reference/workflow_catalog.yaml#clarify_intentfor the complete clarification workflow
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.

