deep-interview
A clarification loop to refine project goals and scope before execution.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/deep-interview && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/18661" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/deep-interview && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/deep-interview
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
[OMX] Socratic deep interview with mathematical ambiguity gating before executionKey capabilities
- →Clarify broad or ambiguous user requests
- →Identify missing concrete acceptance criteria
- →Score ambiguity quantitatively after each answer
- →Ask targeted questions about intent and boundaries
- →Generate a requirements artifact
How it works
The skill engages in a Socratic clarification loop, asking targeted questions to refine vague ideas into concrete specifications. It quantifies ambiguity to ensure alignment before execution.
Inputs & outputs
When to use deep-interview
- →Clarifying ambiguous requirements
- →Interviewing for project scope
- →Refining tasks before planning
About this skill
<Use_When>
- The request is broad, ambiguous, or missing concrete acceptance criteria
- The user says "deep interview", "interview me", "ask me everything", "don't assume", or "ouroboros"
- The user wants to avoid misaligned implementation from underspecified requirements
- You need a requirements artifact before handing off to
ralplan,autopilot,ralph, orteam</Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- The request already has concrete file/symbol targets and clear acceptance criteria
- The user explicitly asks to skip planning/interview and execute immediately
- The user asks for lightweight brainstorming only (use
planinstead) - A complete PRD/plan already exists and execution should start </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists> Execution quality is usually bottlenecked by intent clarity, not just missing implementation detail. A single expansion pass often misses why the user wants a change, where the scope should stop, which tradeoffs are unacceptable, and which decisions still require user approval. This workflow applies Socratic pressure + quantitative ambiguity scoring so orchestration modes begin with an explicit, testable, intent-aligned spec. </Why_This_Exists>
<Depth_Profiles>
- Quick (
--quick): fast pre-PRD pass; target threshold<= 0.30; max rounds 5 - Standard (
--standard, default): full requirement interview; target threshold<= 0.20; max rounds 12 - Deep (
--deep): high-rigor exploration; target threshold<= 0.15; max rounds 20 - Autoresearch (
--autoresearch): same interview rigor as Standard, but specialized for$autoresearchmission readiness and.omx/specs/artifact handoff
If no flag is provided, use Standard.
<Mode_Flags>
--autoresearch: switch the interview into autoresearch-intake mode for$autoresearchhandoff. In this mode, the interview should converge on a validator-ready research mission, write canonical artifacts under.omx/specs/, and preserve the explicitrefine furthervslaunchboundary for downstream skill intake. </Mode_Flags> </Depth_Profiles>
<Execution_Policy>
- Ask ONE question per round (never batch)
- Ask about intent and boundaries before implementation detail
- Target the weakest clarity dimension each round after applying the stage-priority rules below
- Treat every answer as a claim to pressure-test before moving on: the next question should usually demand evidence or examples, expose a hidden assumption, force a tradeoff or boundary, or reframe root cause vs symptom
- Do not rotate to a new clarity dimension just for coverage when the current answer is still vague; stay on the same thread until one layer deeper, one assumption clearer, or one boundary tighter
- Before crystallizing, complete at least one explicit pressure pass that revisits an earlier answer with a deeper, assumption-focused, or tradeoff-focused follow-up
- Gather codebase facts via
explorebefore asking user about internals - When session guidance enables
USE_OMX_EXPLORE_CMD, preferomx explorefor simple read-only brownfield fact gathering; keep prompts narrow and concrete, and keep ambiguous or non-shell-only investigation on the richer normal path and fall back normally ifomx exploreis unavailable. - Always run a preflight context intake before the first interview question
- If initial context is oversized or would exceed the prompt budget, do not paste or forward the raw payload into interview prompts; request and record a prompt-safe initial-context summary first
- The oversized initial-context summary gate is blocking: wait for the concise summary before ambiguity scoring, crystallizing artifacts, or any downstream execution handoff
- The summary must preserve goals, constraints, success criteria, non-goals, decision boundaries, and references to any full source documents so downstream consumers receive a prompt-safe but faithful context
- Keep total prompt payloads within a safe budget by summarizing or trimming retained history; preserve newest/highest-signal answers and never let raw oversized context crowd out the current question
- Reduce user effort: ask only the highest-leverage unresolved question, and never ask the user for codebase facts that can be discovered directly
- For brownfield work, prefer evidence-backed confirmation questions such as "I found X in Y. Should this change follow that pattern?"
- In Codex CLI, deep-interview uses
omx questionas the required OMX-owned structured questioning path for every interview round - If you launch
omx questionin a background terminal, immediately wait for that background terminal to finish and read its JSON answer before scoring ambiguity, asking another round, or handing off - If
omx questionis unavailable in the current runtime, treat that as a blocker/error for deep-interview rather than falling back torequest_user_inputor plain-text questioning - Re-score ambiguity after each answer and show progress transparently
- Do not hand off to execution while ambiguity remains above threshold unless user explicitly opts to proceed with warning
- Do not crystallize or hand off while
Non-goalsorDecision Boundariesremain unresolved, even if the weighted ambiguity threshold is met - Treat early exit as a safety valve, not the default success path
- Persist mode state for resume safety (
state_write/state_read) </Execution_Policy>
Phase 0: Preflight Context Intake
- Parse
{{ARGUMENTS}}and derive a short task slug. - Attempt to load the latest relevant context snapshot from
.omx/context/{slug}-*.md. - Check whether the provided initial context or loaded snapshot is too large for safe prompt use. If it is oversized, the first interview round must ask for a concise prompt-safe summary instead of scoring ambiguity or continuing to downstream handoff.
- If no snapshot exists, create a minimum context snapshot with:
- Task statement
- Desired outcome
- Stated solution (what the user asked for)
- Probable intent hypothesis (why they likely want it)
- Known facts/evidence
- Constraints
- Unknowns/open questions
- Decision-boundary unknowns
- Likely codebase touchpoints
- Prompt-safe initial-context summary status (
not_needed,needed, orrecorded)
- Save snapshot to
.omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md(UTCYYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ) and reference it in mode state.
Phase 1: Initialize
- Parse
{{ARGUMENTS}}and depth profile (--quick|--standard|--deep). - Detect project context:
- Run
exploreto classify brownfield (existing codebase target) vs greenfield. - For brownfield, collect relevant codebase context before questioning.
- Run
- Initialize state via
state_write(mode="deep-interview"):
{
"active": true,
"current_phase": "deep-interview",
"state": {
"interview_id": "<uuid>",
"profile": "quick|standard|deep",
"type": "greenfield|brownfield",
"initial_idea": "<user input>",
"rounds": [],
"current_ambiguity": 1.0,
"threshold": 0.3,
"max_rounds": 5,
"challenge_modes_used": [],
"codebase_context": null,
"current_stage": "intent-first",
"current_focus": "intent",
"context_snapshot_path": ".omx/context/<slug>-<timestamp>.md"
}
}
- Announce kickoff with profile, threshold, and current ambiguity.
Phase 2: Socratic Interview Loop
Repeat until ambiguity <= threshold, the pressure pass is complete, the readiness gates are explicit, the user exits with warning, or max rounds are reached.
2a) Generate next question
If the initial context is oversized and no prompt-safe summary has been recorded yet, the next question must be only a summary request. Do not score ambiguity, do not run readiness gates, and do not hand off to $ralplan, $autopilot, $ralph, or $team until that summary answer is captured.
Use:
- Original idea
- Prior Q&A rounds
- Current dimension scores
- Brownfield context (if any)
- Activated challenge mode injection (Phase 3)
Target the lowest-scoring dimension, but respect stage priority:
- Stage 1 — Intent-first: Intent, Outcome, Scope, Non-goals, Decision Boundaries
- Stage 2 — Feasibility: Constraints, Success Criteria
- Stage 3 — Brownfield grounding: Context Clarity (brownfield only)
Follow-up pressure ladder after each answer:
- Ask for a concrete example, counterexample, or evidence signal behind the latest claim
- Probe the hidden assumption, dependency, or belief that makes the claim true
- Force a boundary or tradeoff: what would you explicitly not do, defer, or reject?
- If the answer still describes symptoms, reframe toward essence / root cause before moving on
Prefer staying on the same thread for multiple rounds when it has the highest leverage. Breadth without pressure is not progress.
Detailed dimensions:
- Intent Clarity — why the user wants this
- Outcome Clarity — what end state they want
- Scope Clarity — how far the change should go
- Constraint Clarity — technical or business limits that must hold
- Success Criteria Clarity — how completion will be judged
- Context Clarity — existing codebase understanding (brownfield only)
Non-goals and Decision Boundaries are mandatory readiness gates. Ask about them early and keep revisiting them until they are explicit.
2b) Ask the question
Use OMX-owned structured questioning via omx question for every interview round (this is the required AskUserQuestion equivalent for deep-interview) and present:
Round {n} | Target: {weakest_dimension} | Ambiguity: {score}%
{question}
omx question payload guidance for interview rounds:
- Use canonical
typevalues i
Content truncated.
When not to use it
- →When the request already has concrete file/symbol targets and clear acceptance criteria
- →When the user explicitly asks to skip planning/interview and execute immediately
- →When the user asks for lightweight brainstorming only
Limitations
- →Does not perform direct implementation
- →Requires user interaction for clarification
- →Relies on `omx question` for structured questioning in Codex CLI
How it compares
This skill systematically reduces ambiguity through a structured questioning process and quantitative scoring, unlike a single expansion pass that might miss critical details or user intent.
Compared to similar skills
deep-interview side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deep-interview (this skill) | 0 | 3mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| product-manager-toolkit | 32 | 7mo | Review | Beginner |
| task-analyzer | 7 | 1mo | No flags | Beginner |
| micro-saas-launcher | 6 | 6mo | No flags | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by yangyuan-zhen
View all by yangyuan-zhen →You might also like
product-manager-toolkit
davila7
Comprehensive toolkit for product managers including RICE prioritization, customer interview analysis, PRD templates, discovery frameworks, and go-to-market strategies. Use for feature prioritization, user research synthesis, requirement documentation, and product strategy development.
task-analyzer
shinpr
Metacognitive task analysis and skill selection. Analyzes task essence, estimates scale, and returns appropriate skills with metadata.
micro-saas-launcher
davila7
Expert in launching small, focused SaaS products fast - the indie hacker approach to building profitable software. Covers idea validation, MVP development, pricing, launch strategies, and growing to sustainable revenue. Ship in weeks, not months. Use when: micro saas, indie hacker, small saas, side project, saas mvp.
game-changing-features
davila7
Find 10x product opportunities and high-leverage improvements. Use when user wants strategic product thinking, mentions '10x', wants to find high-impact features, or says 'what would make this 10x better', 'product strategy', or 'what should we build next'.
job-search-strategist
proyecto26
Comprehensive job search strategy skill for analyzing job postings, discovering non-obvious insights, conducting conversational skills-matching interviews, identifying skill development needs, and creating creative, personalized application strategies. This skill should be used when users want help with job applications, career transitions, analyzing job opportunities, or developing targeted job search approaches that help them stand out from other candidates.
challenge
alirezarezvani
/em -challenge — Pre-Mortem Plan Analysis