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:

Proceed — Continue with current approach
Increase confidence — Show specific actions to resolve the gaps
Run /kw:plan — Structure a plan if one doesn't exist yet
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:

Start with #1 — Execute the top-ranked action
Pick a different action — Choose which to tackle first
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

kw:confidence