decisive-action
npx machina-cli add skill athola/claude-night-market/decisive-action --openclawTable of Contents
- Core Principle
- When to Ask (High Impact Ambiguity)
- When to Proceed Without Asking
- Decision Matrix
- Safety Mechanisms
- Examples
- Anti-Patterns
- Integration
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
| 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?" |
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
| 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 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
| Reversibility | Ambiguity | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Reversible | Low | Proceed |
| Reversible | High | Proceed with preview |
| Irreversible | Low | Proceed with confirmation |
| Irreversible | High | Ask |
Safety Mechanisms
Before Proceeding Autonomously
- Dry-run/Preview: Show proposed action before executing
- Backup First: Create git branch, backup directory
- Incremental Changes: Commit small, reviewable chunks
- 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 communicationsanctum:git-workspace-review- Context gatheringimbue:scope-guard- Scope management
Quick Reference
| 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 |
Source
git clone https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/blob/master/plugins/conserve/skills/decisive-action/SKILL.mdView on GitHub Overview
Decisive Action provides guidance on when to request clarifications versus proceeding with standard approaches. It reduces interaction rounds while avoiding wrong assumptions. The framework covers when to ask, when to proceed, a decision matrix, safety mechanisms, and real-world examples.
How This Skill Works
It centers on the core principle: ask questions only when ambiguity would materially impair correctness. It uses a decision matrix that weighs reversibility against ambiguity to drive action, and enforces safety checks such as dry-run previews, backups, incremental changes, and documenting assumptions.
When to Use It
- Reducing unnecessary clarifying questions
- Taking autonomous action when intent is clear
- Executing standard, reversible changes with a conventional approach
- When a dry-run or review is available before finalizing
- When user context provides clear intent and goal
Quick Start
- Step 1: Do a dry-run/preview of the planned action
- Step 2: Check reversibility (git backup/branch) and verify there is no clear standard conflict
- Step 3: If ambiguity remains or action is irreversible, ask; otherwise proceed and document assumptions
Best Practices
- Use dry-run/preview before autonomous actions
- Create a backup or git branch before changes
- Break changes into incremental, reviewable steps
- Document assumptions in commit messages or PR descriptions
- Verify reversibility and assess error costs before proceeding
Example Use Cases
- Delete old files: destructive operation—ask for specifics
- Add error handling to the parser: proceed with a standard approach
- Refactor the API layer: proceed with a preview
- Consider multiple valid approaches: index vs cache vs denormalize
- Data migration decision: preserve or transform?
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Skills
project-specification
athola/claude-night-market
Transform project briefs into testable specifications with acceptance criteria. Use for requirements translation, spec creation, pre-implementation. Skip if spec exists or still exploring.
hook-factory
alirezarezvani/claude-code-skill-factory
Generate production-ready Claude Code hooks with interactive Q&A, automated installation, and enhanced validation. Supports 10 templates across 7 event types for comprehensive workflow automation.
project-planning
athola/claude-night-market
Transform specifications into implementation plans with architecture design and dependency-ordered tasks. Use for spec-to-plan conversion, task breakdown, effort estimation. Skip if no spec exists.
session-management
athola/claude-night-market
Manage Claude Code sessions with naming, checkpointing, and resume strategies.
multi-review
Pamacea/smite
MANDATORY gate BEFORE merging PR or deploying to production in smite project. Invoke FIRST when 'comprehensive review', 'check security', 'performance review', 'test coverage review', 'code quality audit' - orchestrates parallel review by 4 specialized agents (security, performance, testing, documentation) with consolidated report and scoring. Specific phrases: 'review this PR', 'security audit', 'performance check', 'test review'. (user)
progressive-build
Pamacea/smite
Invoke BEFORE building complex features requiring both speed AND quality in smite project - progressive enhancement workflow using Haiku (MVP in 2min) → Sonnet (quality in 5min) → Opus (excellence in 10min). Triggers on 'complex feature', 'optimize and build', 'production-ready feature', 'build with optimization'. Total: 17min, 9.5/10 quality, 73% cost savings vs Opus-only. Specific phrases: 'progressive build', 'enhance this', 'iterate and improve'. (user)