attac-t Skill: Interview
"The spec you don't write is the bug you will ship."
When
Before implementing any feature that involves:
- Multiple files or domains
- UI/UX decisions
- Architectural choices
- Unclear requirements
Dynamic Cognitive Friction
Match friction to stakes. Flow for the trivial. Rigor for the irreversible.
| Criticality | Reversibility | Depth | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | Minimal (2-5 Qs) | Rename, add field, config change |
| Medium | Medium | Focused (5-15 Qs) | New endpoint, refactor module |
| High | Low | Thorough (15-40+) | Auth system, payment flow, migration |
The Protocol
- Read the minimal spec (spec.md, task description, or user prompt)
- Assess criticality — what's the blast radius? How reversible?
- Interview using
AskUserQuestiontool:- Technical implementation questions
- UI & UX questions
- Concerns and edge cases
- Tradeoffs and alternatives
- Questions must NOT be obvious - dig into the non-trivial
- Scale depth to criticality — use the friction table above
- Write the detailed spec to file
Question Categories
| Category | Example Questions |
|---|---|
| Technical | "Should this use events or direct calls?" |
| UI/UX | "How should validation errors appear?" |
| Edge Cases | "What happens when X is null?" |
| Tradeoffs | "Performance vs simplicity - which priority?" |
| Scope | "Is Y in scope for this feature?" |
The Anti-Patterns
- Assuming: Making decisions without asking
- Obvious questions: "Do you want tests?" (yes, obviously)
- Rushing: 5 questions is not enough for a high-criticality feature
- Alarm fatigue: 40 questions for a config change. Match depth to stakes.
- Implementing without spec: Code before clarity
The Output
Write to $CLAUDE_MEMORY_DIR/spec.md:
- High-level objective
- Mid-level objectives
- Implementation notes
- Low-level tasks
- Answered questions log
Then: NEW SESSION to execute.