Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
前端设计需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计未展示

ring%3ainterviewing-user环%3a 正在采访用户

Agent Skill

ring%3ainterviewing-user 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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

808

周安装

34

GitHub Stars

180

下载量

283
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

2

许可证

unknown

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:ring%3ainterviewing-user(环%3a 正在采访用户)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring
仓库路径:skills/ring%3Ainterviewing-user
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring:interviewing-user
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。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring:interviewing-user

简介

ring%3ainterviewing-user 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息。

  • 它适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理。
  • 可通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装,具体实现需查阅原始 README。
  • 安装前建议评估权限范围、项目维护状态及潜在的文件或网络访问行为。
  • 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。

SKILL.md

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 ring:interviewing-user skill to gather requirements before we begin."

Quick Reference

PhaseKey ActivitiesToolOutput
1. Context AnalysisAnalyze task, identify ambiguitiesInternalAmbiguity inventory
2. Question ClusteringGroup questions by categoryInternalPrioritized question list
3. Structured InterviewAsk questions using AskUserQuestionAskUserQuestionUser responses
4. Understanding SummarySynthesize and confirmText outputValidated Understanding
5. Proceed or IterateUser confirms or clarifiesUser inputGreen 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:

PriorityCategoryCriteria
P0BlockingCannot proceed without answer
P1ArchitectureAffects overall structure
P2BehaviorAffects user-facing functionality
P3PreferencesAffects 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:

## 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-PatternWhy It's WrongCorrect Approach
Asking without exploring firstWastes user's timeExplore codebase THEN ask
Open-ended questions onlyHard to answer, vague responsesProvide concrete options
Too many questions at onceOverwhelmingMax 4 per round, max 3 rounds
Asking about things user already saidShows you weren't listeningRe-read conversation first
Asking preferences when conventions existCLAUDE.md/codebase already answersFollow existing patterns
Skipping summary phaseUser can't correct misunderstandingsAlways present Validated Understanding

Integration with Other Skills

SkillRelationship
ring:doubt-triggered-questionsUse for single questions during work; use ring:interviewing-user for systematic upfront gathering
ring:brainstormingInterview first to gather requirements, THEN brainstorm solutions
ring:writing-plansInterview 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

Blocker Criteria

STOP and report if:

Decision TypeBlocker ConditionRequired Action
Question BudgetExceeded 3 rounds of questions without resolutionSTOP and report - user may not have required information
ConfirmationUser neither confirms nor denies understanding after 2 attemptsSTOP and ask for explicit confirmation
Scope CreepInterview reveals task is fundamentally different than expectedSTOP and restart with new scope definition
ContradictionUser responses contradict each otherSTOP and surface the contradiction for resolution

Cannot Be Overridden

The following requirements CANNOT be waived:

  • MUST explore codebase before asking questions - asking without context wastes user time
  • MUST provide concrete options (2-4 choices) - open-ended questions are FORBIDDEN
  • MUST present Validated Understanding summary before proceeding
  • CANNOT treat silence or ambiguous responses as confirmation

Severity Calibration

SeverityConditionRequired Action
CRITICALP0 blocking question unansweredMUST resolve before any implementation
HIGHP1 architecture question unansweredMUST resolve - affects overall structure
MEDIUMP2 behavior question unansweredShould resolve - affects user-facing functionality
LOWP3 preference question unansweredCan proceed with sensible default

Pressure Resistance

User SaysYour Response
"Just start building, we'll figure it out""CANNOT proceed without resolving P0 and P1 questions. It's better to ask 5 questions upfront than rewrite code 3 times."
"I don't have time for all these questions""I MUST ask at least P0 blocking questions. Maximum 3 rounds, maximum 4 questions per round - this saves time versus incorrect implementation."
"You're the expert, just decide""CANNOT make architecture decisions without user input. I'll present 2-4 concrete options with trade-offs for you to choose."

Anti-Rationalization Table

RationalizationWhy It's WRONGRequired Action
"User seems busy, I'll skip the interview"Skipping requirements gathering causes rework. 5 upfront questions < 3 implementation rewrites.MUST complete interview for ambiguous requirements
"I can infer what they want from context"Inference creates assumptions. Explicit confirmation prevents misunderstanding.MUST get explicit answers, not infer intent
"Open-ended question will give richer response"Open-ended questions are hard to answer and produce vague responses.MUST provide 2-4 concrete options
"User said 'sounds good' - that's confirmation"'Sounds good' is acknowledgment, not explicit confirmation.MUST get explicit 'confirmed' or 'proceed'

Key Principles

PrincipleApplication
Explore before asking30 seconds of exploration can save a question
Structured choicesUse AskUserQuestion with 2-4 concrete options
Show your workInclude what you found and why you're uncertain
Respect timeMax 3 rounds, max 4 questions per round
Confirm understandingAlways present summary for validation
Iterate if neededUnclear confirmation = ask follow-up

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

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

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

Codex

33.59%
按下载量换算95

Claude

30.71%
按下载量换算87

Cursor

20.14%
按下载量换算57

Gemini CLI

9.71%
按下载量换算27

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills