Pathfinding

Adaptive Q&A → unclear requirements → clear path.

<when_to_use>

• Ambiguous/incomplete requirements

• Complex features needing exploration

• Greenfield projects with open questions

• Collaborative brainstorming or problem solving

NOT for: time-critical bugs, well-defined tasks, obvious questions

</when_to_use>

Bar Lvl % Name Action

░░░░░

0 0–19 Prepping Gather foundational context

▓░░░░

1 20–39 Scouting Ask broad questions

▓▓░░░

2 40–59 Exploring Ask focusing questions

▓▓▓░░

3 60–74 Charting Risky to proceed; gaps remain

▓▓▓▓░

4 75–89 Mapped Viable; push toward 5

▓▓▓▓▓

5 90–100 Ready Deliver

Start honest. Clear request → level 4–5. Vague → level 0–2.

At level 4: "Can proceed, but 1–2 more questions would reach full confidence. Continue or deliver now?"

Below level 5: include △ Caveats section.

Load the maintain-tasks skill for stage tracking. Stages advance only, never regress.

Stage Trigger activeForm

Prep level 0–1 "Prepping"

Explore level 2–3 "Exploring"

Clarify level 4 "Clarifying"

Deliver level 5 "Delivering"

Task format — each stage gets context-specific title:

• Prep { domain } requirements
• Explore { approach } options
• Clarify { key unknowns, 3-4 words }
• Deliver { artifact type }

Situational (insert before Deliver when triggered):

• Resolve Conflicts → ◆ Caution or ◆◆ Hazard pushback

• Validate Assumptions → high-risk assumptions before delivery

Workflow:

• Start: Create stage matching initial confidence in_progress

• Transition: Mark current completed , add next in_progress

• High start (4+): Skip directly to Clarify or Deliver

• Early delivery: Skip to Deliver

• △ Caveats

Calibrate first — user may have already provided context (docs, prior conversation, pointed you at files). If enough context exists, skip to level 3–4. Don't re-ask what's already clear.

If gaps remain, explore focus areas (pick what's relevant):

• Purpose: What problem? Why now?

• Constraints: Time, tech, team, dependencies

• Success: How will we know it works?

• Scope: What's in, what's out?

When multiple approaches exist:

• Propose 2–3 options with trade-offs

• Lead with recommendation ★ and reasoning

• Let user pick, combine, or redirect

Principles:

• YAGNI — cut what's not needed

• DRY — don't duplicate effort or logic

• Simplest thing — prefer boring solutions

Use EnterPlanMode for each question — enables keyboard navigation of options.

Structure:

• Prose above tool: context, reasoning, ★ recommendation if clear lean

• Inside tool: options only (concise, scannable)

At level 0 — start with session intent:

• Quick pulse check vs deep dive?

• Exploring possibilities or solving a specific problem?

• What does "done" look like?

Levels 1–4 — focus on substance:

• 2–4 options per question + "5. Something else"

• Inline [★] on recommended option + italicized rationale

• User replies: number, modifications, or combos

Loop: Answer → Restate → Update Confidence → Next action

After each answer emit:

• Confidence: {BAR} {NAME}

• Assumptions: { if material }

• Unknowns: { what we can clarify; note unknowables when relevant }

• Decisions: { what's locked in }

• Concerns: { what feels off + why }

Next action by level:

• 0–2: Ask clarifying questions

• 3: Summarize (3 bullets max), fork toward 5

• 4: Offer choice: refine or proceed

• 5: Deliver

When answer reveals a concern mid-stream:

• Pause before next question

• Surface with △

• brief description

• Ask: clarify now, note for later, or proceed with assumption?

Example: "△ This assumes the API supports batch operations — clarify now, note for later, or proceed?"

If user proceeds despite significant gap → escalate to pushback protocol.

Escalate when choice conflicts with goals/constraints/best practices:

• ◇ Alternative : Minor misalignment. Present option + reasoning.

• ◆ Caution : Clear conflict. Recommend alternative, explain risks, ask to proceed. Triggers Resolve Conflicts.

• ◆◆ Hazard : High failure risk. Require mitigation or explicit override. Triggers Resolve Conflicts.

Override: Accept "Proceed anyway: {REASON}" → log in next reflection → mark Resolve Conflicts complete.

Integrate skeptic agent for complexity sanity checks:

Recommend (offer choice):

• Level 5 reached with △ Caveats > 2

• Red flag language in decisions: "might need later", "more flexible", "best practice"

Before finalizing — you have {N} caveats. Want to run skeptic for a sanity check? [AskUserQuestion]

1. Yes, quick check [★] — I'll challenge complexity interactively
2. Yes, deep analysis — launch skeptic agent in background
3. No, proceed — deliver as-is

Auto-invoke (no choice):

• Level 4+ with 3+ unknowns persisting across 2+ question cycles

• ◆◆ Hazard escalation triggered during session

When auto-invoking:

[Auto-invoking skeptic — {REASON}]

Launch with Task tool:

• subagent_type: "outfitter:skeptic"

• prompt: Include current decisions, unknowns, and caveats

• run_in_background: false (wait for findings before delivery)

After skeptic returns:

• Present findings to user

• If verdict is block → add Resolve Conflicts stage

• If verdict is caution → offer choice to address or acknowledge

• If verdict is proceed → continue to delivery

Level 5: Produce artifact immediately (doc, plan, code, outline). If none specified, suggest one.

After delivering, ask where to persist (if applicable):

[EnterPlanMode]

1. { discovered path } [★] — { source: CLAUDE.md preference | existing directory | convention }
2. Create issue — { Linear/GitHub/Beads based on project context }
3. ADR — { if architectural decision }
4. Don't persist — keep in conversation only
5. Something else — different location or format

Discovery order for option 1:

• CLAUDE.md or project instructions with explicit plan storage preference

• Existing .agents/plans/ directory

• Existing docs/plans/ directory

• Fall back to .agents/plans/ if nothing found

Always suggest filename based on topic. Match existing conventions if present.

Mark Deliver completed after artifact is delivered (persistence is optional follow-up).

Below 5: Append △ Caveats :

• Open questions + context

• Assumed decisions + defaults

• Known concerns + impact

• Deferred items + revisit timing

ALWAYS:

• Task stage matching initial confidence at start

• EnterPlanMode for each question (keyboard nav)

• Prose above tool for context + ★ recommendation

• One question at a time, wait for response

• Restate + update confidence before next move

• Update todos at level 4, level 5 thresholds

• Apply pushback protocol on conflicts

• Check skeptic triggers at level 4+ (unknowns, caveats, red flags)

NEVER:

• Proceed from 0–3 without clarifying questions

• Hide uncertainty below level 5

• Stack questions or bury decisions in paragraphs

• Put recommendation inside plan tool (keep in prose)

• Skip reflection after answer

• Regress stages

• Ignore skeptic auto-invoke triggers

• confidence.md — confidence deep dive

• questions.md — question crafting

• examples/ — session examples

• skeptic agent (outfitter:skeptic) — complexity sanity checks