decisive-action

Guidance on when to ask clarifying questions vs proceed with standard approaches. Reduces unnecessary interaction rounds

Safety Notice

This listing is from the official public ClawHub registry. Review SKILL.md and referenced scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "decisive-action" with this command: npx skills add athola/nm-conserve-decisive-action

Night Market Skill — ported from claude-night-market/conserve. For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.

Table of Contents

Decisive Action

Guidance on when to ask clarifying questions versus proceeding autonomously.

When To Use

  • Reducing unnecessary clarifying questions
  • Taking autonomous action when intent is clear

When NOT To Use

  • High-stakes irreversible operations requiring explicit confirmation
  • Ambiguous requirements where clarification prevents wasted work

Core Principle

Ask questions only when ambiguity would materially impair correctness or capacity to fulfill the request precisely.

When to Ask (High Impact Ambiguity)

Always Ask For

ScenarioWhyExample
Destructive OperationsIrreversible, high cost of error"Delete which files?"
Multiple Valid ApproachesMaterially different tradeoffs"Add index vs cache vs denormalize?"
Security-CriticalWrong choice = vulnerability"Which auth method?"
Data MigrationData loss risk"Preserve or transform?"
Breaking ChangesAffects downstream users"Deprecate or remove?"

Ask Threshold Checklist

Before asking, verify:

  • >30% chance of wrong interpretation
  • Error cost > correction cost
  • No clear standard approach exists
  • User context doesn't clarify intent

When to Proceed Without Asking

Default to Action For

ScenarioWhyAssumption
Standard Approach ExistsIndustry conventionUse conventional pattern
Easily ReversibleLow cost of errorCan undo via git/backup
Clear from ContextIntent is obviousProceed with stated goal
User Can ReviewPR/dry-run availableChanges are inspectable

Proceed Threshold Checklist

Proceed without asking if:

  • Standard/obvious solution exists
  • Easily reversible (git, backup)
  • User can review before finalize
  • Context makes intent clear
  • Error cost < interruption cost

Decision Matrix

ReversibilityAmbiguityAction
ReversibleLowProceed
ReversibleHighProceed with preview
IrreversibleLowProceed with confirmation
IrreversibleHighAsk

Safety Mechanisms

Before Proceeding Autonomously

  1. Dry-run/Preview: Show proposed action before executing
  2. Backup First: Create git branch, backup directory
  3. Incremental Changes: Commit small, reviewable chunks
  4. Document Assumptions: In commit message or PR description

Undo Capability

Always ensure rollback is possible:

  • Git operations: git stash, backup branches
  • File operations: Copy before modify
  • Data operations: Transaction rollback

Examples

Example: Should Ask

User: "Delete the old files"

Analysis:

  • Destructive operation ✗
  • Multiple interpretations ✗
  • No clear standard ✗

Response:

Which files should I delete? I found:
- Files unchanged >6 months: 23 files
- Files in deprecated/: 5 files
- Files marked TODO remove: 2 files

Example: Should Proceed

User: "Add error handling to the parser"

Analysis:

  • Standard approach exists ✓
  • Easily reversible (git) ✓
  • User can review PR ✓

Action: Implement try/catch with logging, create PR.

Example: Proceed with Preview

User: "Refactor the API layer"

Analysis:

  • Multiple valid approaches
  • BUT: reversible via git
  • AND: user can review

Action:

Refactoring API layer. Proposed changes:

1. Extract authentication middleware
2. Standardize error responses
3. Add request validation

Creating branch: refactor/api-layer
Preview diff available before merge.

Anti-Patterns

Asking Too Much (Inefficient)

  • Asking for every implementation detail
  • Seeking validation for obvious choices
  • Repeating questions already answered in context

Asking Too Little (Risky)

  • Proceeding with destructive actions silently
  • Assuming intent when multiple valid interpretations exist
  • Ignoring ambiguity in security-critical operations

Integration

Combine with:

  • conserve:response-compression - Direct communication
  • sanctum:git-workspace-review - Context gathering
  • imbue:scope-guard - Scope management

Quick Reference

SituationAction
"Delete X"Ask which X
"Add feature"Proceed with standard approach
"Fix bug"Proceed with obvious fix
"Choose between A/B"Ask for preference
"Optimize query"Ask if multiple approaches
"Format code"Proceed with project style
"Deploy to prod"Ask for confirmation

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

General

Huo15 Openclaw Enhance

火一五·克劳德·龙虾增强插件 v5.7.8 — 全面适配 openclaw 2026.4.24:peerDep ^4.24 + build/compat 同步到 4.24 + 14 处 api.on 全部去掉 as any 改成 typed hook(hookName 联合类型 + handler 自动推断 Pl...

Registry SourceRecently Updated
General

Content Trend Analyzer

Aggregates and analyzes content trends across platforms to identify hot topics, user intent, content gaps, and generates data-driven article outlines.

Registry SourceRecently Updated
General

Prompt Debugger

Debug prompts that produce unexpected AI outputs — diagnose failure modes, identify ambiguity and conflicting instructions, test variations, compare model re...

Registry SourceRecently Updated
General

Indie Maker News

独行者 Daily - 变现雷达。读对一条新闻,少走一年弯路。每天5分钟,给创业者装上商业雷达。聚焦一人公司、副业、创业变现资讯,智能分类,行动导向。用户下载即能用,无需本地部署!

Registry SourceRecently Updated