Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

interview-me采访我

Agent Skill

interview-me 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

288

周安装

12

GitHub Stars

3

下载量

96
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:interview-me(采访我)
来源仓库:https://github.com/v1-io/v1tamins
仓库路径:skills/interview-me
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/v1-io/v1tamins --skill interview-me
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/v1-io/v1tamins --skill interview-me

简介

该技能用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

  • 适合根据关键词或任务场景快速定位候选结果。
  • 可通过 npx 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装使用。
  • 使用前需确认权限范围及是否涉及联网或文件操作。
  • interview-me 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Interview Me

Collaboratively refine ideas through structured questioning - helping both Claude understand and the user crystallize their thinking. The interview process itself is valuable, not just the final deliverable.

Usage

/interview-me
/interview-me <LINEAR_TICKET_ID>
/interview-me <paste idea or feature description>

Can also be triggered conversationally: "I have an idea for X", "help me spec out Y", "flesh out this concept".

Interview Workflow

1. Understand the Starting Point

Read any provided context (Linear ticket, feature description, rough idea). Identify:

  • What's explicitly stated vs. what's assumed
  • The domain and technical context
  • Who the stakeholders are

2. Gather Existing Context

Before interviewing, explore what already exists using available tools:

  • Linear/Jira: Fetch project descriptions, related issues, initiative context
  • Codebase: Search for related code, existing implementations, architectural patterns
  • Documents: Read related specs, PRDs, or design docs

Hard rule: if a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, Linear, or documents -- explore instead of asking. Only interview for things that require the user's judgment, intent, or domain knowledge. Don't waste interview rounds on things you can look up.

3. Map the Decision Tree

After gathering context, identify the major decisions and branches in the design. List them explicitly:

"I see these key decisions that need resolving: A, B, C..."

Walk dependencies in order -- resolve upstream decisions before probing downstream ones. A decision is "resolved" when it reaches one of these states:

StateExample
Decided"We'll use webhooks, not polling"
Intentionally deferred"We'll decide the retry strategy after load testing"
Blocked on external input"Need pricing info from the vendor before choosing"

Branch closure rule: don't move on from a decision until it reaches one of these states. This prevents the interview from producing a spec full of implicit assumptions.

4. Open with the Right First Question

The first question shapes the entire interview. Choose based on what the user provided:

Starting InputFirst Question Strategy
Vague idea ("I want to build X")"What's the problem you're solving, and who has it worst right now?"
Feature request with some detail"What workaround are people using today, and what breaks about it?"
Linear ticket / spec"What's the most uncertain part of this spec?"
Technical concept"What's the simplest version of this that would be useful?"

Avoid generic openers like "tell me more" or "what's the goal." The first question should demonstrate you understood the input and are already thinking ahead.

In the same opening round, calibrate depth:

  • "Are you looking for a full spec, or more of an initial analysis to decide if this is worth pursuing?"

Then adjust the rest of the interview:

  • Full design: Probe until implementation-ready. Cover all relevant question categories.
  • Analysis/exploration: Stop when problem is well-characterized, solutions can be TBD. Focus on Current State, Constraints, Risk & Priority.
  • Mixed: Go deep on core areas, lighter on peripheral ones.

5. Conduct the Interview

Use AskUserQuestion repeatedly. Interview until sufficient understanding is reached.

Question Strategy:

  • Ask 2-4 questions per round maximum
  • Each question should unlock new understanding, not confirm obvious facts
  • Progress from foundational to detailed to edge cases
  • When an answer reveals complexity, drill deeper before moving on
  • Use multiSelect: true when choices aren't mutually exclusive

Progressive Synthesis:

After every 2-3 rounds, share a brief summary of your current understanding:

"Here's what I'm hearing so far: [2-4 sentence synthesis]. Before I go deeper on X, does this track?"
  • Frame as a checkpoint, not a conclusion
  • If the user corrects the summary, acknowledge and adjust before continuing
  • Keep these lightweight -- conversational, not a slide deck
  • This catches drift early instead of discovering misalignment at the end

Handling Uncertainty:

Response TypeMeaningAction
"I don't know"Needs researchRecord as Open Question (research needed), move on
"I haven't decided"Decision pendingRecord as Open Question (decision needed), note tradeoffs discussed
"It depends"Conditional answerDrill into conditions -- "What does it depend on?" Get the conditions enumerated.
"I don't care" / "Either way"Low priority for userMake a reasonable default recommendation and note it
"We should ask [person]"Blocked on stakeholderRecord as Open Question (blocked: [person]), move on

Don't keep pushing when user signals uncertainty. Document it with the right label and move on.

Adapt to Communication Style:

  • Terse answers: User is busy or decisive. Ask fewer, more targeted questions. Don't re-ask in different words.
  • Long, exploratory answers: User is thinking out loud. Let them finish, then synthesize back before next question.
  • "I don't know" frequently: Shift from probing to proposing. Offer options instead of open questions.
  • Technical depth: Match their level. Don't oversimplify for an engineer or get technical with a PM.

Constructive Challenge:

Actively probe for weak spots in the plan:

  • Expose weak defaults, conflicting assumptions, and irreversible choices
  • Surface flawed assumptions as questions: "I notice X assumes Y, but earlier you said Z -- how do those fit together?"
  • Name obvious gaps once, clearly: "One thing worth addressing: [gap]. Intentional or something to work through?"
  • Push on "it depends" -- get the conditions enumerated rather than leaving them vague
  • Don't repeatedly challenge the same point. State once, record the user's response, move on.

Recognizing Pivots:

If answers consistently point away from the original idea (the real problem is different, the assumed user is wrong, a simpler solution exists), pause and name it:

"Based on what you've described, it sounds like the core problem might actually be X rather than Y. Should we shift the interview in that direction?"

Don't silently drift. Explicitly acknowledge the pivot so the user can agree or disagree. If they agree, restart progressive synthesis from the new framing. If they disagree, note the alternative framing as an open question.

Question Categories (cycle through as needed):

CategoryFocusExample Non-Obvious Questions
Current StateWhat exists today"What workaround exists now?" / "How is this problem currently handled?"
ConstraintsWhat limits the solution space"What's the recovery story if this fails mid-operation?" / "What existing system invariants must we preserve?"
Users & ActorsWho interacts and how"Who has to clean up when this goes wrong?" / "What's the worst thing a confused user could do here?"
State & DataWhat changes and persists"What happens to in-flight data if this is deployed mid-operation?" / "What's the source of truth when systems disagree?"
BoundariesWhere responsibility ends"What's explicitly NOT in scope that someone might assume is?" / "At what scale does this approach break down?"
Failure ModesWhat breaks and how"What's the blast radius if the dependency is down for an hour?" / "How do we know this is broken before users tell us?"
Risk & PriorityWhat matters most"If this work isn't done, what breaks first?" / "Rank these concerns by impact"
ValidationHow to verify"What's the smallest experiment to test this hypothesis?" / "How would we know this worked?"
EvolutionHow it changes over time"What's the migration path when requirements change?" / "What decision here will be hardest to reverse?"
IntegrationHow it connects"What existing workflows does this interrupt or complicate?" / "Who needs to know when this happens?"

Category Coverage Tracker:

  • Current State
  • Constraints
  • Users & Actors
  • State & Data
  • Boundaries
  • Failure Modes
  • Risk & Priority
  • Validation
  • Evolution
  • Integration

Not all categories apply -- depth calibration from step 4 determines which matter. For analysis scope, focus on Current State, Constraints, Risk & Priority. For full design, cover all relevant categories.

6. Avoid These Question Patterns

  • Don't ask what's already stated in the input
  • Don't ask "what's the goal" if the goal is clear
  • Don't ask binary yes/no when the interesting answer is "it depends"
  • Don't ask about implementation details before understanding constraints
  • Don't confirm assumptions--challenge them

7. Recognize Completion

Stop interviewing when:

  • Core user journeys are mapped
  • Error handling and edge cases are addressed (or marked TBD appropriately)
  • Integration points and dependencies are identified
  • Success criteria and metrics are defined
  • Scope boundaries are explicit
  • All decisions in the decision tree are resolved (decided, deferred, or blocked)

Alternative Completion Signals:

  • User says "I think that's enough" or "this is helpful"
  • User's answers become consistently confident (uncertainty resolved)
  • Conversation is circling without new insights
  • Enough captured for user's stated purpose (even if spec isn't "complete")

8. Synthesize Before Committing

Before writing final output:

  1. Summarize the full picture, incorporating any corrections from earlier progressive check-ins
  2. Highlight the most important insights and open questions
  3. Confirm this matches their understanding
  4. Ask if anything was missed before committing to artifact

This catches misunderstandings before they're written into permanent artifacts.

9. Determine Output Format

Select based on context:

ConditionFormatAction
User provided a Linear ticket or existing docUpdate existing artifactIntegrate findings, mark new sections with "NEW:" prefix, preserve existing structure
User needs implementation-ready specStandalone specificationUse spec template in step 10
Idea is early-stage or exploratorySummary for discussionSynthesize key insights, list open questions, skip formal structure
User says "this is helpful" / "that's enough"No output neededThe interview itself achieved the goal

10. Produce the Specification (when appropriate)

For standalone specs, use this structure:

# [Feature/Concept Name] Specification

## Overview
[1-2 paragraph summary of what this is and why it matters]

## Goals & Non-Goals
**Goals:**
- [Explicit objectives]

**Non-Goals:**
- [What this explicitly does NOT do]

## User Stories / Use Cases
[Primary flows with actor, action, outcome]

## Technical Design
[Architecture, data flow, key decisions]

## Edge Cases & Error Handling
[What happens when things go wrong]

## Dependencies & Integration Points
[What this touches and relies on]

## Open Questions
[Anything that still needs resolution - including intentional TBDs]

## Success Criteria
[How we know this works]

11. Chain to Next Steps

After producing output, suggest relevant next actions:

  • Implementation ready? -> "Want me to start building this?" (chains to relevant implementation skills)
  • Needs broader input? -> "Should I write this up for team review?" (chains to stickify for persuasive framing)
  • Linear ticket? -> "Want me to create/update the Linear ticket?" (chains to Linear MCP tools)
  • PRD needed? -> "Should I expand this into a full PRD?" (chains to prd skill)

Reference Files

  • examples.md -- Sample interview transcript and quick reference

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

26.95%
按下载量换算26

windsurf

24.88%
按下载量换算24

trae

17.06%
按下载量换算16

OpenCode

14.06%
按下载量换算13

Codex

8.68%
按下载量换算8

Antigravity

3.2%
按下载量换算3

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills