plugins/conserve/skills/decisive-action/SKILL.md
Guides when to ask clarifying questions versus proceed autonomously. Use to reduce unnecessary clarifying questions when intent is clear.
npx skillsauth add athola/claude-night-market decisive-actionInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Guidance on when to ask clarifying questions versus proceeding autonomously.
Ask questions only when ambiguity would materially impair correctness or capacity to fulfill the request precisely.
| Scenario | Why | Example | |----------|-----|---------| | Destructive Operations | Irreversible, high cost of error | "Delete which files?" | | Multiple Valid Approaches | Materially different tradeoffs | "Add index vs cache vs denormalize?" | | Security-Critical | Wrong choice = vulnerability | "Which auth method?" | | Data Migration | Data loss risk | "Preserve or transform?" | | Breaking Changes | Affects downstream users | "Deprecate or remove?" |
Before asking, verify:
| Scenario | Why | Assumption | |----------|-----|------------| | Standard Approach Exists | Industry convention | Use conventional pattern | | Easily Reversible | Low cost of error | Can undo via git/backup | | Clear from Context | Intent is obvious | Proceed with stated goal | | User Can Review | PR/dry-run available | Changes are inspectable |
Proceed without asking if:
| Reversibility | Ambiguity | Action | |---------------|-----------|--------| | Reversible | Low | Proceed | | Reversible | High | Proceed with preview | | Irreversible | Low | Proceed with confirmation | | Irreversible | High | Ask |
Always ensure rollback is possible:
git stash, backup branchesUser: "Delete the old files"
Analysis:
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
User: "Add error handling to the parser"
Analysis:
Action: Implement try/catch with logging, create PR.
User: "Refactor the API layer"
Analysis:
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.
Combine with:
conserve:response-compression - Direct communicationsanctum:git-workspace-review - Context gatheringimbue:scope-guard - Scope management| Situation | Action | |-----------|--------| | "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 |
data-ai
Models a business in its own language. Use when the domain has real business rules to capture.
research
Generate diverse solution candidates with category-spanning ideation methods and rotation. Use when stuck on a design or fighting repetitive LLM output.
development
Generates and self-executes a diff-derived test plan for a PR. Use when validating PR changes before merge. Do not use for code review; use sanctum:pr-review.
development
Ramps implementation ambition a notch only after the prior increment is understood. Use when building a feature you must understand, not just ship.