Turn a decision that needs someone else’s knowledge into a Markdown questionnaire. Clarify who will answer and what information is needed, then create prioritized questions with answer spaces for asynchronous replies or a meeting.
Turn a decision you can't fully answer into a questionnaire for someone else to fill in.
Review 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.
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. Write it to to-questionnaire-<slug>.md in the current directory (slug from the topic) and report the path. Done when the 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: <the user>, To: <the recipient>, 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.
Choose which related skill to use and in what order for planning, building, debugging, or maintaining software. It explains routes through the available workflows and helps select the next step based on your situation and project size.
Coordinate subagents, separate agents assigned tasks, to pursue a long-running goal in one session. Maintain dialogue with the user while improving working conditions, shared rules, and access to information needed for future tasks.
Summarize an ongoing conversation and launch a fresh background agent to continue the work. The handoff includes the next focus, references to existing documents, and suggested skills, with sensitive information removed.
Review code changes from a chosen Git reference against two separate criteria: documented coding standards and the original requirements. Independent reviewers check each criterion, then present findings separately so convention problems and requirement gaps remain visible.
Design modules that offer substantial behavior through a small interface, the rules callers must understand. Use shared design terms to simplify usage, contain complexity, choose where implementations can vary, and make behavior easier to test.
Investigate difficult bugs and performance slowdowns by building a repeatable test or script that detects the exact symptom. Reduce the failing case, compare possible causes, and verify the fix with checks that catch the bug if it returns.