Agent skill

inquire

Request clarification when input is ambiguous. Use when user request has missing parameters, conflicting interpretations, or insufficient constraints for reliable execution.

Stars 163
Forks 31

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/data/inquire

SKILL.md

Intent

Generate targeted clarifying questions when a user request is ambiguous or underspecified, enabling the agent to gather missing information before committing to an action.

Success criteria:

  • Questions target specific missing parameters or ambiguous interpretations
  • Each question provides bounded answer options when applicable
  • Confidence score reflects actual ambiguity level
  • Evidence anchors reference the specific ambiguous elements

Compatible schemas:

  • schemas/output_schema.yaml
  • reference/capability_ontology.yaml#/inquire

Inputs

Parameter Required Type Description
ambiguous_input Yes string|object The underspecified request or goal to clarify
context No object Previous conversation or domain context for better question generation
max_questions No integer Maximum clarifying questions to generate (default: 3)

Procedure

  1. Analyze the input: Examine the ambiguous_input for completeness

    • Identify required parameters for the likely intended action
    • Check for conflicting interpretations
    • Note any implicit assumptions that need validation
  2. Categorize ambiguity types: Classify what's unclear

    • Missing parameters: Required information not provided
    • Conflicting interpretations: Multiple valid ways to interpret the request
    • Constraint gaps: Boundaries or limits not specified
    • Domain uncertainty: Unclear which domain or scope applies
  3. Generate clarifying questions: For each ambiguity, formulate a question

    • Target specific missing information
    • Provide bounded options when possible (2-4 choices)
    • Frame questions to elicit actionable answers
    • Prioritize questions by impact on execution
  4. Ground claims: Attach evidence anchors to the ambiguity analysis

    • Reference specific phrases or words that are ambiguous
    • Link to context that informed the interpretation
    • Format: input:phrase, context:field, or inference:reason
  5. Format output: Structure results according to the output contract

  6. Assess confidence: Rate how confident you are that clarification is needed

    • High confidence (0.8-1.0): Clear missing required parameters
    • Medium confidence (0.5-0.8): Ambiguous but could proceed with assumptions
    • Low confidence (0.0-0.5): Probably clear enough, clarification optional

Output Contract

Return a structured object:

yaml
questions:
  - question: "Which database should this operation target?"
    parameter: "target_database"
    options: ["production", "staging", "development"]
  - question: "Should this include archived records?"
    parameter: "include_archived"
    options: ["yes", "no"]
ambiguity_analysis:
  missing_parameters: ["target_database", "date_range"]
  conflicting_interpretations:
    - interpretation: "Query all users"
      confidence: 0.6
    - interpretation: "Query only active users"
      confidence: 0.4
  confidence_without_clarification: 0.3
confidence: 0.85  # How confident we are that clarification is needed
evidence_anchors: ["input:users", "context:previous_query_was_active_only"]
assumptions: []  # No assumptions made - we're asking for clarification

Field Definitions

Field Type Description
questions array Clarifying questions with optional bounded answers
questions[].question string The clarifying question text
questions[].parameter string What parameter this question resolves
questions[].options array Suggested answers if the question has bounded options
ambiguity_analysis object Analysis of what makes the input ambiguous
ambiguity_analysis.missing_parameters array Parameters required but not provided
ambiguity_analysis.conflicting_interpretations array Different valid interpretations
ambiguity_analysis.confidence_without_clarification number How confident we could be if we just guessed
confidence number 0.0-1.0 confidence that clarification is needed
evidence_anchors array References to ambiguous elements
assumptions array Assumptions made (typically empty for inquire)

Examples

Example 1: Ambiguous API Request

Input:

yaml
ambiguous_input: "Update the user's email"
context:
  recent_topic: "user management"
  available_users: 150
max_questions: 3

Output:

yaml
questions:
  - question: "Which user's email should be updated?"
    parameter: "user_id"
    options: []  # Open-ended - too many users to list
  - question: "What should the new email address be?"
    parameter: "new_email"
    options: []
  - question: "Should this send a verification email to the new address?"
    parameter: "send_verification"
    options: ["yes", "no", "only if production"]
ambiguity_analysis:
  missing_parameters: ["user_id", "new_email"]
  conflicting_interpretations: []
  confidence_without_clarification: 0.1
confidence: 0.95
evidence_anchors: ["input:the user's", "input:email"]
assumptions: []

Evidence pattern: The phrase "the user's" indicates a specific user is intended but not identified. "email" is ambiguous - could mean view, update, or verify.


Example 2: Multiple Valid Interpretations

Input:

yaml
ambiguous_input: "Show me the report"
context:
  available_reports: ["sales", "inventory", "user_activity"]
  last_viewed_report: "sales"
max_questions: 2

Output:

yaml
questions:
  - question: "Which report would you like to see?"
    parameter: "report_type"
    options: ["sales", "inventory", "user_activity"]
  - question: "For what time period?"
    parameter: "date_range"
    options: ["today", "this week", "this month", "custom range"]
ambiguity_analysis:
  missing_parameters: ["report_type", "date_range"]
  conflicting_interpretations:
    - interpretation: "Show sales report (last viewed)"
      confidence: 0.5
    - interpretation: "Show most recently generated report"
      confidence: 0.3
    - interpretation: "Show all available reports"
      confidence: 0.2
  confidence_without_clarification: 0.5
confidence: 0.7
evidence_anchors: ["input:the report", "context:available_reports:3", "context:last_viewed:sales"]
assumptions: []

Evidence pattern: "the report" implies a specific report but context shows 3 options. Recent history (sales) provides a weak signal.

Verification

  • Output contains at least one question when confidence > 0.5
  • Each question has a non-empty parameter field
  • Options array is provided for bounded-choice questions
  • Evidence anchors reference specific input elements
  • Confidence is justified by ambiguity analysis

Verification tools: None beyond allowed tools

Safety Constraints

  • mutation: false
  • requires_checkpoint: false
  • requires_approval: false
  • risk: low

Capability-specific rules:

  • Do not make assumptions - the purpose is to ask, not to guess
  • Limit questions to max_questions to avoid overwhelming users
  • If confidence < 0.3, consider returning empty questions (input may be clear enough)
  • Never include sensitive data in question options

Composition Patterns

Commonly follows:

  • critique - After identifying issues with a request, inquire resolves them
  • receive - After receiving a new request that needs clarification

Commonly precedes:

  • receive - After inquiring, wait for user's clarification response
  • integrate - Merge clarification into the original request
  • plan - Once clarified, proceed to planning

Anti-patterns:

  • Never use inquire after execute - clarify BEFORE acting
  • Avoid chaining multiple inquire calls - combine questions into one request
  • Don't use with mutate in the same step - inquire is read-only

Workflow references:

  • See reference/workflow_catalog.yaml#clarify_intent for the complete clarification workflow

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results