Explicit-only workflow that writes a safe Markdown questionnaire for another person. Use only when the user explicitly asks for a questionnaire.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Turn something the user can't answer alone into a questionnaire: a Markdown document they hand to one person to fill in async, or fill out together over a meeting. The recipient holds knowledge the user lacks; the questionnaire pulls it out of them. Never request credentials, authentication tokens, API keys, passwords, or other secret values. Prefer roles and only include personal information necessary for the questionnaire.
Grill the send, not the subject. Interview the user only about the send, which they can always answer: who it goes to, and what they need back. The questions in the document then target the gap between what the recipient knows and what the user needs.
Who is it going to? Ask, in one exchange, the recipient's role, expertise, and relationship to the user. This fixes the questionnaire's tone and how much context it must carry. Done when you know who the recipient is and what they know that the user doesn't.
What do you need back? Ask, in one exchange, the specific decisions or facts the user can't resolve alone and needs from this person. Done when you have a concrete list of what the user must walk away able to do or decide.
Write the questionnaire. Draft questions aimed at the gap from steps 1–2, following the Document structure below. When writing is allowed, write exactly one collision-resistant Markdown file under $TMPDIR when set, otherwise /tmp, and report its absolute path. When writing is forbidden, render the complete questionnaire in chat and create no file. Never overwrite an existing file, send or publish the questionnaire, or write it in the repository. Done when either the complete questionnaire is rendered in chat or the authorized file exists, and every item the user named in step 2 is covered by a question.
Frame the document as a discovery questionnaire: the user lacks context, the recipient holds it. Order questions most-important-first, since async means you may only get one pass, and group them under ## headings by theme once there are more than a handful. Write it using the template below.
Purpose: why this questionnaire exists and the decision riding on it.
From role: <role>, To role: <role>, How your answers will be used: <where they go>
One paragraph orienting a recipient who wasn't in the user's head. Enough to answer well, not a page.
Deadline and rough effort. Partial answers and "I don't know" are useful: flag anything you're unsure of rather than skipping it.
One ## section per theme. Under each, its questions, most-important-first. Every question is one idea, never compound, with an answer stub directly beneath, and a one-line why this matters only where the question could be misread or invite a throwaway answer.
Why this matters: it decides whether we provision for burst traffic now or defer it.
</question-example>
A closing catch-all: anything we didn't ask that we should know?
</questionnaire-template>No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Read public X/Twitter post URLs as structured evidence through the ADHX API. Use for relevant user-provided or research-discovered x.com, twitter.com, or adhx.com links. ADHX does not search X, and long-form Article content may be incomplete.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Design, review, or report a measured performance comparison. Use for benchmark methodology, speedup or regression claims, and performance-based choices; not generic performance discussion, ordinary dependency bumps, local renames, or prose edits.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Trace what an actual code change could break beyond its diff when interfaces, serialized data, database schemas, configuration, caches, lifecycle ordering, or cross-language consumers are involved. Use for explicit impact analysis; not local renames, prose edits, ordinary dependency bumps, or generic architecture discussion.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules, interfaces, seams, adapters, leverage, and locality. Use when designing or reshaping module boundaries, making code more testable, or evaluating interface depth.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Plan or implement retirement of a system, API, feature, persisted configuration, or database shape. Use for compatibility cutovers, explicit deprecation review, or an explicit unreleased replacement decision, including determining whether consumers or data exist; not ordinary dependency bumps, local renames, prose edits, or generic architecture discussion.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs, regressions, flaky failures, and performance problems with unclear cause. Use for root-cause debugging after a concrete symptom exists; do not use for routine implementation or speculative cleanup.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.