AgentSkillsCN

inquire

当用户输入存在歧义时,主动请求澄清。适用于用户请求参数缺失、表述存在冲突,或因约束条件不足而难以可靠执行的情形。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: inquire
description: Request clarification when input is ambiguous. Use when user request has missing parameters, conflicting interpretations, or insufficient constraints for reliable execution.
argument-hint: "[ambiguous_input] [context] [max_questions=3]"
disable-model-invocation: false
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Grep
context: fork
agent: explore

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

ParameterRequiredTypeDescription
ambiguous_inputYesstring|objectThe underspecified request or goal to clarify
contextNoobjectPrevious conversation or domain context for better question generation
max_questionsNointegerMaximum 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

FieldTypeDescription
questionsarrayClarifying questions with optional bounded answers
questions[].questionstringThe clarifying question text
questions[].parameterstringWhat parameter this question resolves
questions[].optionsarraySuggested answers if the question has bounded options
ambiguity_analysisobjectAnalysis of what makes the input ambiguous
ambiguity_analysis.missing_parametersarrayParameters required but not provided
ambiguity_analysis.conflicting_interpretationsarrayDifferent valid interpretations
ambiguity_analysis.confidence_without_clarificationnumberHow confident we could be if we just guessed
confidencenumber0.0-1.0 confidence that clarification is needed
evidence_anchorsarrayReferences to ambiguous elements
assumptionsarrayAssumptions 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