---
name: asking-user-questions
description: "Use when composing an ask_user_question round inside a workflow, or when a workflow skill names it at a question step. Shared norms for the tool — not a workflow, nothing to execute."
---

# Asking User Questions

The workflow family's shared norms for `ask_user_question`: how to interview in rounds, what makes a
question worth asking, how to shape options, and how to degrade when answers don't come. Process
skills name this concept at the steps that ask; *when* to ask — and where the answers get recorded —
stays with the referencing skill.

## Interview in rounds until nothing is assumed

- Map the subject as a **design tree**: every decision branches into the decisions that hang off it.
  The **frontier** is every open decision whose prerequisites are already settled — the questions you
  can ask *now* without guessing at answers you haven't heard.
- One call = one **round** = the whole frontier, with no cap on its size. A question whose answer
  depends on another question still open belongs to a *later* round, never the same one. Never split
  independent questions across back-to-back calls.
- **The call blocks the current run.** Answers arrive as this tool's result. Don't keep working on the
  blocked step or assume an answer until it arrives — seconds or days later. A composer message sent
  while the card is open supersedes the round: the card closes unanswered and the message arrives as
  the next user message, so treat it as the user's reply and re-ask only what still matters.
- After each round, recompute the frontier: answers settle branches, unblock their dependents, and
  prune branches that no longer apply. Ask the next round; never pre-write later rounds.
- The interview is done when the frontier is empty — every branch visited, nothing material silently
  assumed. Then continue the referencing skill's next step; there is no extra "are we aligned?" round
  (the referencing skill's own gates still apply).
- Depth follows the work, not a quota: work with no open user decision gets zero rounds; a
  decision-heavy change may take several.

## Facts are yours, decisions are theirs

- Never ask the user for a fact the workspace, the specs, or the web can answer. Look it up. When a
  lookup is slow, start it in the background (a sub-agent, when the host offers one) and ask the rest
  of the frontier meanwhile — only the questions downstream of that lookup wait.
- Every decision — scope, observable behavior, trade-offs the user will live with — goes to the user.
  Picking an option yourself and moving on is answering your own question, not inferring.
- If candidate options differ only internally — identical observable behavior — it is not a user
  decision: decide yourself and record the reasoning in the workflow's artifact.

## What makes a question worth asking

- **It changes the outcome.** Each answer leads somewhere different that the user will see or live
  with. If every option ends in the same place, drop the question.
- **It is specific to this work.** Name the actual feature, screen, file, or user ("when a project is
  renamed while collapsed…"), never a generic template question.
- **It probes what people silently assume.** Sweep the tree's usual blind spots: scope edges and
  non-goals, empty / error / failure states, edge cases and limits, concurrency or multiple
  instances, existing data and behavior that must migrate or stay, defaults, and who the work is for.
- **It surfaces tension.** A conflict with a recorded spec decision, an earlier answer, or the
  request itself is asked about outright, quoting both sides.
- **It never re-asks.** Anything the request, a prior answer, or the specs already settled is
  settled; build on it.
- **A concrete scenario beats an abstract principle.** Ask "a user drags a file onto a busy session —
  queue it or reject it?", not "how should concurrency be handled?".
- If the question can't be settled by talking (how something should look or feel), show a concrete
  artifact in `options[].preview` — a mockup, snippet, or config — instead of describing it.

## Options

- Recommended option first, label suffixed "(Recommended)", plus a one-line `recommendedReason` saying
  why you recommend it over the alternatives (shown inline under the option as a `Why:` line).
- Every option: a concise label (1–5 words, ≤ 60 chars) + a description carrying the trade-off or
  consequence of choosing it. Tailor options to the work at hand — never generic placeholders.
- Options must be **decidable by the asked user**: frame them as observable behavior or outcomes
  ("collapsing a project stays collapsed after a rename"), never as implementation mechanics
  ("semantic guard", "activation ref").
- Never author your own "Other", free-text, or escape options — the tool adds a free-text row to
  every question and an always-available Skip, and reserved labels are rejected. This holds under
  `multiSelect` too: the free-text row stays and is *additive* — a typed answer arrives alongside the
  checked options, it does not replace them.
- `multiSelect: true` when several answers are valid at once (feature checklists); single-select when
  confirming something or choosing one path.
- `options[].preview` (markdown) when a concrete artifact — code, a config, a mockup — is clearer
  shown than described. Single-select only.
- `header` is a short chip, ≤ 16 characters.

## Confirming an inference

When you have inferred something and need a yes/adjust rather than an open answer: the inferred
statement *is* the question text, with "Looks right" as the first option (description: "accurate as
written") and a genuine rejection option second (e.g. "Off base — ask me directly"). Edits arrive
through the tool's automatic free-text row — do not author an edit option. Read the response as:

- **"Looks right"** → the inference holds; continue unchanged.
- **Free-text tweak** (one fact changes) → update that field only; don't re-derive anything else.
- **Substantial rewrite** → re-derive every inference that came from that statement before continuing.
- **Rejection** → discard the inference entirely and ask an open-ended question instead.

## Degradation

- A skipped or declined question is not a blocker: settle it on your recommended answer, recorded as
  unconfirmed in the workflow's artifact (the referencing skill says where), and keep working its
  dependents from that assumption — don't re-ask it.
- A whole round skipped means the user wants to stop being interviewed: ask no further rounds and
  proceed on recorded assumptions for everything still open.
- If the host reports no interactive UI (`ask_user_question` returns "not available"), state your
  assumptions the same way instead of blocking.
- "I don't know / help me understand" is a mis-framing signal, not a missing-knowledge one: re-explain
  from user-visible behavior in plain language, then re-ask with behavior-framed options — don't
  repeat the same technical options with more detail.

## Red flags

- You stopped after one round while decisions that depended on its answers are still open.
- You chose an option for the user instead of asking — or asked the user something you could have
  looked up.
- One round holds two questions where one answer would change the other.
- A question restates what the request or an earlier answer already settled.
- Every question would fit any project — nothing names this work's specifics.