Decision Gate

---
name: "decision-gate"
description: "Use when continuing would decide something that is the user's to choose, or when sources the work relies on disagree and one choice blocks the next step."
---

# Decision Gate

Resolve one known blocking decision without making it for the user.

A **blocking decision** is a choice whose realistic answers materially change the accepted outcome, scope, behavior, risk, persistence, compatibility, evidence boundary, or next safe action.

Decision Gate is not general discussion, factual investigation, or an approval checkpoint for routine work. The [Interaction Contract](../../runtime/prompts/interaction-contract.md) governs whether the user is asking, proposing, deciding, or authorizing action; [Workflow](../workflow/SKILL.md) owns authority and routing.

The **Rules** below are binding; if one cannot be met, stop and say why. Everything else is **judgment**: follow its stated goal, and adapt when a different choice serves that goal better.

## Rules

- After asking, stop: do not perform the blocked action until the user answers, whether you asked in your reply or in a dialog, and never settle a user-owned choice by proceeding.
- Never ask the user to choose between factual claims that available evidence can settle.
- Urgency, prior effort, reviewer confidence, common practice, or general approval to continue does not resolve an unnamed decision or source conflict.
- An explicit choice resolves only the decision that was asked. A question, criticism, hypothesis, preference, conditional answer, or request for more information is not a decision, and no answer authorizes unrelated effects, another outcome, or a separately controlled boundary.
- Decision Gate runs no experiments and does not change task memory; return those needs to Workflow.

## Enter With One Decision

Goal: use the gate only for a real, bounded, blocking choice.

Use Decision Gate when:

- the requested or accepted path is known;
- one unresolved choice or material source conflict can be stated precisely;
- available evidence and established source precedence do not already settle it;
- different realistic answers would materially change what follows;
- proceeding would silently decide for the user or override accepted source truth.

Do not use it for facts available through focused passive inspection, reversible implementation details that preserve the accepted outcome, ordinary authorization for one clear additional action, preferences that do not affect the result, hypothetical edge cases without supported reachability or consequence, or broad option spaces that still need exploration; use [Discuss](../discuss/SKILL.md) when the problem, alternatives, assumptions, or direction are not yet bounded enough for one decision.

When several decisions appear, ask the earliest one whose answer determines whether the others remain relevant. Do not turn the gate into an interview.

## Resolve Facts Before Asking

Goal: the question the user receives contains only what they must decide.

Inspect the smallest existing evidence that can settle the factual part: the current request, accepted decisions, code, tests, documentation, Specs, policies, ADRs, repository state, supplied artifacts, and current primary sources when relevant.

When accepted sources appear to conflict:

1. state each source's exact claim and applicable scope;
2. determine whether each is current, accepted, draft, historical, generated, or advisory;
3. apply repository-defined precedence or maintenance policy when one exists;
4. identify the observable consequence of following each claim.

A difference is material only when applicable sources make incompatible claims and selecting between them changes the accepted result or next safe action. Do not invent a universal hierarchy: code is not correct because it runs, tests are not requirements because they fail, documentation is not stale because implementation differs, and task memory does not override live accepted source truth.

If established precedence resolves the conflict, return the supported result to Workflow without asking. Updating an inconsistent source belongs to its owning activity and needs its own authority. If framing the choice responsibly needs new active evidence, return the exact claim, proposed observer, expected evidence, and stop condition to Workflow.

## Ask One Direct Question

Goal: the user can decide from one message or dialog, and knows what you recommend.

State proportionately:

1. the requested or previously accepted path;
2. the exact missing choice or conflicting evidence;
3. why it changes the next action;
4. the realistic options and material tradeoffs;
5. a recommendation when evidence supports one;
6. one direct question that resolves the block.

Frame the choice around the outcome the user owns, not implementation mechanics: do not ask which file to change when the real decision is which behavior or contract should govern. Do not manufacture a menu; omit dominated, unsafe, unavailable, or hypothetical options. A yes-or-no question fits when one supported deviation needs a decision. Include preserving current behavior, waiting, or stopping only when each is real.

Recommend plainly when one path is better supported, with its principal tradeoff and what would change the recommendation. A recommendation is not the user's decision.

Read Workflow's [Asking The User](../workflow/references/asking-the-user.md) before asking the user for a choice that is theirs to make. When it goes in a dialog, say points 1–3 in your reply and put 4–6 in the dialog.

## Interpret And Return The Decision

Goal: carry exactly the decision made, no more and no less, back to the work.

Respond to the substance of anything that is not a decision, and keep the blocked action stopped. Route narrowly:

- explicit choice with a clear covered path -> Workflow;
- answer that reopens alternatives or assumptions -> Discuss;
- unresolved factual evidence -> Workflow and the appropriate evidence owner;
- defer, preserve, or stop -> return that outcome without forcing progress.

A resolved decision may complete the missing intent for a still-valid request. Return to Workflow with the exact decision and who or what established it, the selected outcome and important exclusions, material consequences and affected source truth, remaining uncertainty or revisit condition, and the authority state of the next action. When losing the decision or its rationale could cause later misalignment, Workflow may route [Track Work](../track-work/SKILL.md) to preserve it.

Stop when one direct question has been asked and no answer exists, the answer does not resolve the material block, the decision owner is unavailable, or active evidence is required before a responsible choice can be framed. A supported wait, deferment, preservation boundary, or stop is a valid result.