Skip to content
Back to skills

Inquire

ASecurity

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

  • 4 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added February 8, 2026
ai-agentsgoapidatabase

Works with

  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 7 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned February 12, 2026

npx -y skills add synaptiai/agent-capability-standard --skill inquire --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Inquire?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Inquire
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/synaptiai-inquire/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/synaptiai-inquire)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
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

| 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

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md8.2 KB
  • reference/capability_ontology.yaml42.1 KB
  • reference/event_schema.yaml3.5 KB
  • reference/transform_mapping_rawlog_to_observation.yaml2.2 KB
  • reference/workflow_catalog.yaml55.6 KB
  • reference/world_state_schema.yaml10.6 KB
  • schemas/output_schema.yaml1.3 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.