---

name: decisive-action description: | Triggers: question threshold, decisive, autonomous, clarifying questions Guidance on when to ask clarifying questions vs proceed with standard approaches. Reduces interaction rounds while preventing wrong assumptions. category: workflow tags: [efficiency, workflow, decision-making] tools: [] complexity: low estimated_tokens: 450

Decisive Action

Guidance on when to ask clarifying questions versus proceeding autonomously.

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

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

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

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:

CopyWhich 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:

CopyRefactoring 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