name	Pathfinding
version	2.0.0
description	Collaborative Q&A to clarify unclear requirements. Use when user wants to figure something out, brainstorm ideas, work through a challenge, explore approaches, or plan features. Triggers would be when requirements are unclear, when exploring an idea, when planning, or when a user explicitly mentions pathfind(ing), brainstorm(ing), clarify(ing), figur(ing) out, work(ing) through, or `--pathfind`.

Pathfinding

Adaptive Q&A → unclear requirements → clear path.

Ambiguous/incomplete requirements
Complex features needing exploration
Greenfield projects with open questions
Collaborative brainstorming or problem solving

NOT for: time-critical bugs, well-defined tasks, obvious questions

Bar	Lvl	%	Name	Action
`░░░░░`	0	0–19	Prepping	Gather foundational context
`▓░░░░`	1	20–39	Scouting	Ask broad questions
`▓▓░░░`	2	40–59	Exploring	Ask focusing questions
`▓▓▓░░`	3	60–74	Charting	Risky to proceed; gaps remain
`▓▓▓▓░`	4	75–89	Mapped	Viable; push toward 5
`▓▓▓▓▓`	5	90–100	Ready	Deliver

Start honest. Clear request → level 4–5. Vague → level 0–2.

At level 4: "Can proceed, but 1–2 more questions would reach full confidence. Continue or deliver now?"

Below level 5: include △ Caveats section.

Track with TodoWrite. Phases advance only, never regress.

Phase	Trigger	activeForm
Prep	level 0–1	"Prepping"
Explore	level 2–3	"Exploring"
Clarify	level 4	"Clarifying"
Deliver	level 5	"Delivering"

TodoWrite format — each phase gets context-specific title:

- Prep { domain } requirements
- Explore { approach } options
- Clarify { key unknowns, 3-4 words }
- Deliver { artifact type }

Situational (insert before Deliver when triggered):

Resolve Conflicts → ◆ Caution or ◆◆ Hazard pushback
Validate Assumptions → high-risk assumptions before delivery

Workflow:

Start: Create phase matching initial confidence in_progress
Transition: Mark current completed, add next in_progress
High start (4+): Skip directly to Clarify or Deliver
Early delivery: Skip to Deliver + △ Caveats

Calibrate first — user may have already provided context (docs, prior conversation, pointed you at files). If enough context exists, skip to level 3–4. Don't re-ask what's already clear.

If gaps remain, explore focus areas (pick what's relevant):

Purpose: What problem? Why now?
Constraints: Time, tech, team, dependencies
Success: How will we know it works?
Scope: What's in, what's out?

When multiple approaches exist:

Propose 2–3 options with trade-offs
Lead with recommendation ★ and reasoning
Let user pick, combine, or redirect

Principles:

YAGNI — cut what's not needed
DRY — don't duplicate effort or logic
Simplest thing — prefer boring solutions

Use EnterPlanMode for each question — enables keyboard navigation of options.

Structure:

Prose above tool: context, reasoning, ★ recommendation if clear lean
Inside tool: options only (concise, scannable)

At level 0 — start with session intent:

Quick pulse check vs deep dive?
Exploring possibilities or solving a specific problem?
What does "done" look like?

Levels 1–4 — focus on substance:

2–4 options per question + "5. Something else"
Inline [★] on recommended option + italicized rationale
User replies: number, modifications, or combos

Loop: Answer → Restate → Update Confidence → Next action

After each answer emit:

Confidence: {BAR} {NAME}
Assumptions: { if material }
Unknowns: { what we can clarify; note unknowables when relevant }
Decisions: { what's locked in }
Concerns: { what feels off + why }

Next action by level:

0–2: Ask clarifying questions
3: Summarize (3 bullets max), fork toward 5
4: Offer choice: refine or proceed
5: Deliver

When answer reveals a concern mid-stream:

Pause before next question
Surface with △ + brief description
Ask: clarify now, note for later, or proceed with assumption?

Example: "△ This assumes the API supports batch operations — clarify now, note for later, or proceed?"

If user proceeds despite significant gap → escalate to pushback protocol.

Escalate when choice conflicts with goals/constraints/best practices:

◇ Alternative: Minor misalignment. Present option + reasoning.
◆ Caution: Clear conflict. Recommend alternative, explain risks, ask to proceed. Triggers Resolve Conflicts.
◆◆ Hazard: High failure risk. Require mitigation or explicit override. Triggers Resolve Conflicts.

Override: Accept "Proceed anyway: {REASON}" → log in next reflection → mark Resolve Conflicts complete.

Integrate skeptic agent for complexity sanity checks:

Recommend (offer choice):

Level 5 reached with △ Caveats > 2
Red flag language in decisions: "might need later", "more flexible", "best practice"

Before finalizing — you have {N} caveats. Want to run skeptic for a sanity check?
[AskUserQuestion]
1. Yes, quick check [★] — I'll challenge complexity interactively
2. Yes, deep analysis — launch skeptic agent in background
3. No, proceed — deliver as-is

Auto-invoke (no choice):

Level 4+ with 3+ unknowns persisting across 2+ question cycles
◆◆ Hazard escalation triggered during session

When auto-invoking:

[Auto-invoking skeptic — {REASON}]

Launch with Task tool:

subagent_type: "outfitter:skeptic"
prompt: Include current decisions, unknowns, and caveats
run_in_background: false (wait for findings before delivery)

After skeptic returns:

Present findings to user
If verdict is block → add Resolve Conflicts phase
If verdict is caution → offer choice to address or acknowledge
If verdict is proceed → continue to delivery

Level 5: Produce artifact immediately (doc, plan, code, outline). If none specified, suggest one.

After delivering, ask where to persist (if applicable):

[EnterPlanMode]
1. { discovered path } [★] — { source: `CLAUDE.md` preference | existing directory | convention }
2. Create issue — { Linear/GitHub/Beads based on project context }
3. ADR — { if architectural decision }
4. Don't persist — keep in conversation only
5. Something else — different location or format

Discovery order for option 1:

CLAUDE.md or project instructions with explicit plan storage preference
Existing .agents/plans/ directory
Existing docs/plans/ directory
Fall back to .agents/plans/ if nothing found

Always suggest filename based on topic. Match existing conventions if present.

Mark Deliver completed after artifact is delivered (persistence is optional follow-up).

Below 5: Append △ Caveats:

Open questions + context
Assumed decisions + defaults
Known concerns + impact
Deferred items + revisit timing

ALWAYS:

TodoWrite phase matching initial confidence at start
EnterPlanMode for each question (keyboard nav)
Prose above tool for context + ★ recommendation
One question at a time, wait for response
Restate + update confidence before next move
Update todos at level 4, level 5 thresholds
Apply pushback protocol on conflicts
Check skeptic triggers at level 4+ (unknowns, caveats, red flags)

NEVER:

Proceed from 0–3 without clarifying questions
Hide uncertainty below level 5
Stack questions or bury decisions in paragraphs
Put recommendation inside plan tool (keep in prose)
Skip reflection after answer
Regress phases
Ignore skeptic auto-invoke triggers

confidence.md — confidence deep dive
questions.md — question crafting
examples/ — session examples
FORMATTING.md — formatting conventions
skeptic agent (outfitter:skeptic) — complexity sanity checks

Pathfinding

Install Skill

SKILL.md

Pathfinding