Back to skills
SkillHub ClubShip Full StackFull Stack

interviewing-user

A well-structured skill for systematic requirements gathering that proactively interviews users to resolve ambiguities before implementation, preventing wasted effort from incorrect assumptions.

Packaged view

This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.

Stars
141
Hot score
96
Updated
March 20, 2026
Overall rating
A8.3
Composite score
6.6
Best-practice grade
B81.2

Install command

npx @skill-hub/cli install lerianstudio-ring-interviewing-user
requirements-gatheringuser-interactionambiguity-resolutionsystematic-process

Repository

LerianStudio/ring

Skill path: default/skills/interviewing-user

A well-structured skill for systematic requirements gathering that proactively interviews users to resolve ambiguities before implementation, preventing wasted effort from incorrect assumptions.

Open repository

Best for

Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.

Technical facets: Full Stack.

Target audience: Developers, product managers, and technical leads working on ambiguous projects where requirements need systematic clarification before implementation.

License: Unknown.

Original source

Catalog source: SkillHub Club.

Repository owner: LerianStudio.

This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.

What it helps with

  • Install interviewing-user into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
  • Review https://github.com/LerianStudio/ring before adding interviewing-user to shared team environments
  • Use interviewing-user for meta workflows

Works across

Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode

Favorites: 0.

Sub-skills: 0.

Aggregator: No.

Original source / Raw SKILL.md

---
name: interviewing-user
description: |
  Proactive requirements gathering - systematically interviews the user to uncover
  ambiguities, preferences, and constraints BEFORE implementation begins.

trigger: |
  - User invokes /interview-me command
  - Claude detects significant ambiguity in requirements
  - Multiple valid implementation paths exist with no clear winner
  - User says "interview me", "ask me questions", "clarify with me"
  - Task involves architecture decisions without clear direction

skip_when: |
  - Requirements are already crystal clear
  - User has provided detailed specifications
  - Following an existing plan with explicit instructions
  - Doubt can be resolved via doubt-triggered-questions (single question)

sequence:
  before: [brainstorming, writing-plans]
  after: []

related:
  similar: [brainstorming]
  uses: [doubt-triggered-questions]
---

# Interviewing User for Requirements

## Overview

Proactively surface and resolve ambiguities by systematically interviewing the user BEFORE implementation begins. This prevents wasted effort from incorrect assumptions.

**Core principle:** It's better to ask 5 questions upfront than to rewrite code 3 times.

**Announce at start:** "I'm using the interviewing-user skill to gather requirements before we begin."

## Quick Reference

| Phase | Key Activities | Tool | Output |
|-------|---------------|------|--------|
| **1. Context Analysis** | Analyze task, identify ambiguities | Internal | Ambiguity inventory |
| **2. Question Clustering** | Group questions by category | Internal | Prioritized question list |
| **3. Structured Interview** | Ask questions using AskUserQuestion | AskUserQuestion | User responses |
| **4. Understanding Summary** | Synthesize and confirm | Text output | Validated Understanding |
| **5. Proceed or Iterate** | User confirms or clarifies | User input | Green light to proceed |

## The Process

Copy this checklist to track progress:

```
Interview Progress:
- [ ] Phase 1: Context Analysis (ambiguities identified)
- [ ] Phase 2: Question Clustering (questions prioritized)
- [ ] Phase 3: Structured Interview (questions asked and answered)
- [ ] Phase 4: Understanding Summary (presented to user)
- [ ] Phase 5: Proceed or Iterate (user confirmed)
```

### Phase 1: Context Analysis

**BEFORE asking any questions**, analyze:

1. **What the user explicitly stated** - Extract concrete requirements
2. **What the codebase implies** - Patterns, conventions, existing solutions
3. **What remains ambiguous** - Gaps between stated and implied
4. **What decisions I must make** - Architecture, behavior, constraints

**Create an Ambiguity Inventory:**

```
Ambiguity Inventory:
- Architecture: [list unclear architectural decisions]
- Behavior: [list unclear behavioral requirements]
- Constraints: [list unclear constraints or limitations]
- Preferences: [list unclear user preferences]
- Integration: [list unclear integration points]
```

### Phase 2: Question Clustering

Group questions by category and prioritize:

| Priority | Category | Criteria |
|----------|----------|----------|
| **P0** | Blocking | Cannot proceed without answer |
| **P1** | Architecture | Affects overall structure |
| **P2** | Behavior | Affects user-facing functionality |
| **P3** | Preferences | Affects style, not correctness |

**Question Budget:**
- **Maximum 4 questions per AskUserQuestion call** (tool limitation)
- **Maximum 3 rounds of questions** (respect user's time)
- **Prefer fewer, higher-quality questions**

### Phase 3: Structured Interview

Use `AskUserQuestion` tool with well-structured options:

**Question Quality Checklist:**
- [ ] Shows what I already know (evidence of exploration)
- [ ] Explains why I'm uncertain (the genuine conflict)
- [ ] Provides 2-4 concrete options with descriptions
- [ ] Options are mutually exclusive or clearly labeled as multi-select

**Example - Good Question:**
```
header: "Auth Method"
question: "The codebase has both session-based auth (UserService) and JWT (APIService). Which should this new endpoint use?"
options:
  - label: "Session-based (Recommended)"
    description: "Matches existing user-facing endpoints, simpler cookie handling"
  - label: "JWT tokens"
    description: "Matches API patterns, better for external integrations"
  - label: "Support both"
    description: "Maximum flexibility, more implementation complexity"
```

**Example - Bad Question:**
```
question: "What authentication should I use?"
options:
  - label: "Option 1"
  - label: "Option 2"
```

### Phase 4: Understanding Summary

After gathering responses, synthesize into a **Validated Understanding**:

```markdown
## Validated Understanding

### What We're Building
[1-2 sentence summary of the goal]

### Key Decisions Made
| Decision | Choice | Rationale |
|----------|--------|-----------|
| [Topic] | [Selected option] | [Why this was chosen] |

### Constraints Confirmed
- [Constraint 1]
- [Constraint 2]

### Out of Scope (Explicit)
- [Thing we're NOT doing]

### Assumptions (If Any)
- [Assumption]: [What would invalidate this]
```

**Present this to the user for confirmation.**

### Phase 5: Proceed or Iterate

**Confirmation Gate:**

Understanding is NOT confirmed until user explicitly says:
- "Confirmed" / "Correct" / "That's right"
- "Proceed" / "Let's do it" / "Go ahead"
- "Yes" (in response to "Is this correct?")

**These do NOT mean confirmation:**
- Silence
- "Interesting" / "I see"
- Questions about the summary
- "What about X?" (that's requesting changes)

**If not confirmed:** Return to Phase 3 with targeted follow-up questions.

## Question Categories

### Architecture Questions
- "Which pattern should this follow: [A] or [B]?"
- "Where should this logic live: [Service A], [Service B], or new service?"
- "Should this be synchronous or asynchronous?"

### Behavior Questions
- "When [edge case], should the system [A] or [B]?"
- "What should happen if [failure scenario]?"
- "Should users be able to [optional capability]?"

### Constraint Questions
- "Is there a performance requirement for this?"
- "Does this need to support [specific scenario]?"
- "Are there backward compatibility requirements?"

### Preference Questions
- "Do you prefer [verbose but explicit] or [concise but implicit]?"
- "Should I prioritize [speed] or [maintainability]?"
- "Any naming conventions I should follow?"

## When to Auto-Trigger This Skill

Claude SHOULD invoke this skill automatically when:

1. **Ambiguity count > 3** - More than 3 unclear decisions
2. **Architecture choice unclear** - Multiple valid patterns, no codebase precedent
3. **User request is high-level** - "Build me X" without specifics
4. **Previous implementation was rejected** - Indicates misunderstanding
5. **Task spans multiple domains** - Frontend + backend + infrastructure

Claude should NOT auto-trigger when:
- Task is a simple bug fix with clear reproduction
- User provided detailed specifications
- Following an existing plan
- Single question would suffice (use doubt-triggered-questions instead)

## Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Why It's Wrong | Correct Approach |
|--------------|----------------|------------------|
| Asking without exploring first | Wastes user's time | Explore codebase THEN ask |
| Open-ended questions only | Hard to answer, vague responses | Provide concrete options |
| Too many questions at once | Overwhelming | Max 4 per round, max 3 rounds |
| Asking about things user already said | Shows you weren't listening | Re-read conversation first |
| Asking preferences when conventions exist | CLAUDE.md/codebase already answers | Follow existing patterns |
| Skipping summary phase | User can't correct misunderstandings | Always present Validated Understanding |

## Integration with Other Skills

| Skill | Relationship |
|-------|--------------|
| `doubt-triggered-questions` | Use for single questions during work; use interviewing-user for systematic upfront gathering |
| `brainstorming` | Interview first to gather requirements, THEN brainstorm solutions |
| `writing-plans` | Interview first to clarify scope, THEN create plan |

## Required Patterns

This skill uses these universal patterns:
- **State Tracking:** See `skills/shared-patterns/state-tracking.md`
- **Failure Recovery:** See `skills/shared-patterns/failure-recovery.md`
- **Exit Criteria:** See `skills/shared-patterns/exit-criteria.md`

## Exit Criteria

Interview is complete when ALL of these are true:

- [ ] All P0 (blocking) questions answered
- [ ] All P1 (architecture) questions answered
- [ ] Validated Understanding presented
- [ ] User explicitly confirmed understanding
- [ ] No remaining ambiguities that affect correctness

## Key Principles

| Principle | Application |
|-----------|-------------|
| **Explore before asking** | 30 seconds of exploration can save a question |
| **Structured choices** | Use AskUserQuestion with 2-4 concrete options |
| **Show your work** | Include what you found and why you're uncertain |
| **Respect time** | Max 3 rounds, max 4 questions per round |
| **Confirm understanding** | Always present summary for validation |
| **Iterate if needed** | Unclear confirmation = ask follow-up |