kw:confidence

Confidence

Pause and honestly say what you're confident about and what you're not — like a colleague would. Then decide whether to proceed or dig deeper.

When to Use

• Before committing to a plan or starting execution

• When something feels uncertain but you can't pinpoint what

• After research, to verify you have enough to proceed

• As a gut-check during any /kw: workflow

Process

Step 1: Identify what's being assessed

Scan the conversation for the active task, plan, or workflow:

• If mid-/kw:work — assess the current or next task
• If mid-/kw:plan — assess the plan being structured
• If a plan file exists — read it and assess the approach
• If the user gave context — assess what they described

If there's nothing to assess (empty session, no context):

"What should I assess? Describe what you're working on or point me to a file."

Step 2: Assess honestly

Think through these areas internally — but don't output them as a checklist:

• Task understanding — Do I know exactly what's being asked?
• Information sufficiency — Do I have what I need to do this well?
• Approach certainty — Is this approach proven or am I guessing?
• Risk awareness — Can I see what could go wrong?

Rules for honest assessment:

• Assess each area independently. Don't let confidence in one area inflate another.
• Be specific — name files, numbers, assumptions, and unknowns.
• Don't hedge on things you're genuinely confident about. If you've read the files and the approach is proven, say so.
• Don't fake confidence on things you're not sure about. If your knowledge came from a quick search rather than deep familiarity, say that.

Step 3: Produce the confidence check

Write in plain prose with this structure:

## Confidence Check

**Confident about:** [What you know and why. Be specific — name the files
you've read, the patterns you recognize, the experience you're drawing on.
This can be a sentence or a short paragraph.]

**Less confident about:** [What you don't know and why it matters. Name the
specific gaps — missing data, unverified assumptions, unfamiliar territory.
Explain what could go wrong if these gaps aren't addressed.]

**My recommendation:** [One of three paths:
- "Proceed." — confidence is high, no meaningful gaps
- "Proceed, but [caveat]." — mostly confident, one area to watch
- "Pause for [specific thing]." — a gap needs resolving first]

If everything is high confidence, keep it short:

High confidence. Task is clear, I've read the relevant files, the approach matches established patterns. No gaps I can identify. Ready to proceed.

Don't force a full breakdown when there's nothing to break down. Two sentences is fine.

Step 4: Offer next steps

Use AskUserQuestion:

Question: "What would you like to do?"

Options:

1. Proceed — Continue with current approach
2. Increase confidence — Show specific actions to resolve the gaps
3. Run /kw:plan — Structure a plan if one doesn't exist yet
4. Save assessment — Write to the active plan file or plans/confidence-{date}.md

If the user selects "Increase confidence":

Produce a ranked list of specific, executable actions. Rank by impact — biggest confidence gain first:

## To Increase Confidence

1. [What to do] — [Why it matters. What gap it closes.]

2. [What to do] — [Why it matters. What gap it closes.]

3. [What to do — note if it needs user input] — [Why it matters.]

Want me to start with #1?

Each action must be specific enough to execute immediately. "Read data/q4-results.csv to confirm the $50K benchmark" not "gather more data." Note which actions Claude can do autonomously vs. which need user input.

Use AskUserQuestion:

Question: "How would you like to proceed?"

Options:

1. Start with #1 — Execute the top-ranked action
2. Pick a different action — Choose which to tackle first
3. Proceed anyway — Accept current confidence level and continue

After executing action(s), reference the improvement conversationally:

"That Q4 data confirms the $50K target is realistic — that was the main gap. Confidence is higher now."

Then return to Step 4 to offer next steps again.

If the user selects "Proceed" and a workflow is active:

Explicitly re-anchor to the interrupted workflow:

"Resuming /kw:work at Task 3."

Then continue where you left off. The confidence check is a non-destructive interrupt.

Important Rules

• Never give a number. No percentages, no 1-10 scales, no letter grades. Write in prose.

• Be specific. "Missing Q4 data" not "some information gaps." Name files, assumptions, unknowns.

• Don't hedge on what you know. Confidence theater — hedging on everything to seem careful — is worse than overconfidence. If you've done the work, say so clearly.

• Actions must be executable. Every item in the "increase confidence" list must be something you or the user can do right now. "Read file X" not "gather more data."

• Non-destructive interrupt. If invoked mid-workflow, resume exactly where you left off after. Don't restart the parent workflow.

• Keep it proportional. High confidence = 2 sentences. Mixed confidence = a few short paragraphs. Never a wall of text.

• This is not /kw:review. Confidence assesses what you know and don't know — your epistemic state. Review assesses whether a finished artifact is good enough. They're complementary, not alternatives.

Pipeline Mode

When invoked with disable-model-invocation context (e.g., from an orchestrator or automation):

• Skip all AskUserQuestion prompts
• Use sensible defaults for all choices
• Write output files without waiting for confirmation
• Proceed to the next suggested skill automatically
• Output structured results that the calling context can parse