Conduct a structured, one-question-at-a-time interview to explore a specific topic or decision — each question offers 3-4 concrete, mutually exclusive options plus a free-text path, and later questions adapt to prior answers rather than following a fixed script. Ends with a recap the user confirms before finalizing, and only then produces a synthesized answer or (when the interview clearly feeds downstream work) a written brief. NOT for open-ended ambiguity-surfacing (use socratic-method) or single-fact lookups.
72
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Interviews fail two ways: dumping a wall of questions on the user at once, or asking open questions that make the user do the work of drafting an answer from scratch. This skill fixes both — ask one question, make each option a genuine, distinct answer the user can just pick, and let every answer reshape what gets asked next.
Every question should be answerable in one short reply, not a paragraph. The interview is not a checklist to complete — it is a chain of decisions where each answer changes the shape of the next question. Treat "I don't know" or "other" as real signal, not a failure to plan for.
Applicable only when ALL of the following hold:
If any prerequisite is absent, skip this skill. For open-ended ambiguity where the problem itself
is unclear, use socratic-method instead — that skill probes assumptions with open questions;
this one narrows a known topic down to a decision via concrete choices.
BY DEFAULT, reach for this skill whenever a topic has a real, enumerable decision space. PREFER a direct answer instead when the ask is mechanical or the user is visibly time-constrained. TYPICALLY, the whole interview resolves in 3-6 questions — consider that a rough budget, not a hard cap.
socratic-methodAskUserQuestion tool for a single question at
a time. Never bundle multiple questions into one call just because the tool nominally supports
up to four — batching is the default for quick clarifications, but an interview is explicitly
the case where that default is wrong.AskUserQuestion adds it automatically;
if asking in plain chat instead, explicitly invite a written answer.plan-create, a brief, a ticket) — if it's
unclear whether a file is wanted, ask as part of the recap rather than assuming.These are the anti-patterns that turn a crisp interview into an interrogation. The most persistent pitfall — the one worth watching for even after the protocol feels automatic — is treating the curated option list as exhaustive instead of a starting point.
Even as a single AskUserQuestion call bundling several.
WHY: Multiple simultaneous questions force the user to hold several decisions in mind at once and break the adaptive chain — the second question can no longer benefit from the first answer.
BAD: One AskUserQuestion call with four unrelated questions about scope, timeline, audience, and format.
GOOD: One question about scope; once answered, decide what to ask next based on that answer.
On a question that has a real decision space.
WHY: Two options force a false binary when more genuine paths exist; five or more overloads the user's working memory. If a decision space needs more than 4 branches, split it into two sequential questions instead.
BAD: "Fast or slow?" when three genuinely different approaches exist. GOOD: Three or four options, each a distinct, real answer — plus the automatic free-text path.
WHY: Concrete options speed up the common case, but the user's actual answer may not be listed. Forcing a pick from a closed set produces false signal.
BAD: Presenting only the 3-4 curated options as if they were exhaustive. GOOD: Curated options for speed, with "Other" always available and genuinely considered.
A clear "here's my answer, let's move on" or "just decide" signal ends the questioning.
WHY: Persisting past an explicit override wastes the user's time and reads as not listening.
BAD: Asking another branching question after the user says "just pick the sensible default." GOOD: Acknowledge, synthesize with reasonable defaults, and move to the recap.
WHY: The recap is the user's only checkpoint before the interview's output is produced — if it misrepresents an answer, the final output will be built on the wrong premise.
BAD: Summarizing "you wanted the simple option" when the user actually picked a specific named one. GOOD: Recap each answer close to verbatim, then ask "did I get all of that right?"
Unless it's clearly needed by downstream work.
WHY: Defaulting to files nobody asked for creates clutter and implies more ceremony than the interview warranted.
BAD: Writing a brief document after a quick chat-scoped decision with no follow-on task. GOOD: Default to a chat answer; write a file only when the interview is visibly feeding a plan, ticket, or other artifact the user already asked for — or ask if it's unclear.
| Situation | Response |
|---|---|
| User picks "Other" repeatedly | Your curated options aren't matching their mental model. The RECOMMENDED fix is only when a second free-text answer confirms the pattern: stop curating and ask an open question instead |
| User wants to skip a question | Skip it, note the gap in the recap, and adapt later questions to not depend on it |
| A new answer contradicts an earlier one | Surface the contradiction plainly and ask which one holds, rather than silently picking one |
| Topic turns out broader than expected mid-interview | Pause, state the new scope in one line, and confirm before continuing with adapted questions |
| User says "just decide for me" | Stop questioning, state the assumptions you'll use as defaults, and move straight to the recap |
| You can't generate 3 genuinely distinct options | The question may be too granular or premature — merge it into a broader question or defer it |
When this skill is active, begin with:
I'll ask a few questions one at a time, each with a few options to pick from (or write your own answer). Let's start.
[First question, via
AskUserQuestion, 3-4 options]
Run this check before opening the interview, to confirm the topic actually has a decision space:
# Returns "interview" or "answer-directly" based on whether the request names a real choice
# skip if the prompt already names one specific, unambiguous fact to look up
echo "$USER_PROMPT" | head -c 200→ Expected output: a short excerpt you can eyeball for a decision word ("choose", "which", "strategy", "approach"). If it reads as a decision, open the interview. If it reads as a single fact, answer directly instead.
Detailed supporting material lives in references/:
question-design.md — the 3-4 rule, what makes an option
concrete, and when to stop askingworked-example.md — a fully annotated interview from opening
question through recap and confirmationa1083f4
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.