KevinZai Confidence Check
Before executing any plan or implementation, assess your confidence level.
Process
Step 1: Rate 4 Dimensions (0-100%)
| Dimension | Question | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements | Do I fully understand what's being asked? | _/100 |
| Approach | Do I know how to implement this? | _/100 |
| Edge Cases | Have I considered failure modes and edge cases? | _/100 |
| Verification | Can I prove the result works? Do I have a test plan? | _/100 |
Step 2: Calculate Overall Score
Average the 4 dimensions → Overall Confidence: _%
Step 3: Act on Score
90-100%: HIGH CONFIDENCE
- Proceed with implementation
- Execute the plan as designed
- Token savings: maximum (no wasted exploration)
70-89%: MODERATE CONFIDENCE
- Present 2-3 alternative approaches
- Ask 2-3 clarifying questions
- Only proceed after questions are answered
- Token savings: significant (prevents partial wrong-direction work)
Below 70%: LOW CONFIDENCE
- STOP. Do not implement.
- List exactly what is unclear or unknown
- Ask focused questions to raise confidence
- Research or explore the codebase for answers
- Re-assess after gathering information
- Token savings: massive (prevents entire wrong-direction session)
Step 4: Post-Implementation Validation
After completing implementation, run the Four-Question Check:
- Tests: All tests passing? (run them, don't assume)
- Requirements: Every requirement from the spec is met? (check each one)
- Assumptions: No assumptions made without verification? (list any)
- Evidence: Can I show evidence for each claim? (screenshots, test output, logs)
If any answer is "no" → fix before marking done.
ROI
This pattern saves 25-250x tokens by catching wrong-direction work before it starts:
- 90%+ confidence: 1x cost (proceed normally)
- 70-89%: 2-3x cheaper than fixing after (questions cost less than rework)
- <70%: 25-250x cheaper (prevents entire wasted implementation sessions)
Credit
Inspired by the SuperClaude Framework's confidence checking and four-question validation patterns.