Alignment Checkpoint
Scope and triggers
Use this skill when:
- You want to prevent misunderstandings before work begins.
- The request is ambiguous, multi-part, or high-risk.
- The user says: “alignment”, “checkpoint”, “confirm first”, “don’t start yet”, “before you run tools”, or similar.
- You are about to run tools (shell/web/filesystem/MCP) and want a clear go/no-go.
Required inputs
- The user’s request text (treat as canonical; quote exactly in stasis mode).
- Any explicit constraints already stated by the user (time, scope, “do not implement”, etc.).
Deliverables
Always produce (Phase 0):
- A JSON extraction containing:
explicit_goalimplicit_assumptionssuccess_criteria
- A formatted summary (goal/assumptions/criteria).
- Three approach options:
minimal,balanced,comprehensive. - An explicit gate requiring:
/proceed <option>or/clarify <question-or-answer>.
Additionally, if stasis mode is triggered:
- A STASIS_RECORD containing the user request verbatim.
- Confirmation that no tools will be used and no implementation will occur.
- Optionally (only if explicitly requested) a tool-free plan outline.
Constraints (Safety)
Hard rule: before the user explicitly approves, you MUST NOT:
- run shell commands
- read/write repo files
- browse the web
- call MCP tools
- create/modify branches, issues, PRs
Secrets/PII hygiene:
- Never request or echo tokens/keys/credentials.
- Do not paste sensitive user data into examples; redact if needed.
Single-threading:
- Ask at most one clarifying question at a time.
Philosophy
- Align first, act second. Output structure that the user can approve.
- Assumptions are debts. State them explicitly so the user can accept/reject.
- No surprises. Tools and implementation only after an explicit
/proceed.
Procedure
0) Detect stasis mode (preserve / do NOT implement)
If the user request includes either phrase (case-insensitive):
do NOT implement/do not implementpreserve only
Then:
- Emit a STASIS_RECORD (verbatim request; no paraphrasing).
- State: “Stasis mode is active: no tools will be used, and no implementation will occur.”
- If the user explicitly asked for a plan, you MAY provide a tool-free plan outline.
- Still present the approach options and require
/proceed <option>before any tool use.
STASIS_RECORD format:
STASIS_RECORD
timestamp: <ISO-8601 local time>
verbatim_request:
<paste the user request exactly as written>
1) Produce the structured extraction (required)
Output a JSON object in a json code fence with EXACTLY these keys:
{
"explicit_goal": "",
"implicit_assumptions": [],
"success_criteria": []
}
Rules:
- Do not invent unknown specifics; express them as assumptions.
- If success criteria are missing, propose testable criteria and label them as assumptions.
2) Present the alignment summary (required)
Show:
- Goal (1 line)
- Assumptions (bullets)
- Success criteria (bullets)
3) Present 3 approach options (required)
Provide these options and what you would do if approved:
- minimal: smallest safe slice; minimal verification; no extras.
- balanced: normal engineering standard; lightweight tests/verification; minimal docs.
- comprehensive: thorough analysis; strongest verification; deeper docs/risk review.
4) Gate (required) — stop and wait
End with:
- “Reply with
/proceed minimal|balanced|comprehensiveto continue.” - Or: ask one clarifying question and instruct: “Reply
/clarify <answer>.” - Additionally, the user may always ask their own clarification via:
/clarify <question>(then re-run Phase 0 with the new info).
Then STOP. Do not continue into implementation or tool usage.
Validation
Fail fast checks (if any fail, STOP and fix the first failure):
- Did I avoid all tool calls before approval?
- Did I output the JSON extraction with EXACTLY the 3 required keys?
- Did I present 3 options (minimal/balanced/comprehensive)?
- Did I end with an explicit gate and stop?
- If stasis mode triggered: did I include a STASIS_RECORD with the request verbatim?
Skill contract + evals:
references/contract.yamldefines purpose/triggers/risks/non-goals.references/evals.yamlcontains evaluation prompts + acceptance checks.
Anti-patterns
- Starting implementation “just to get momentum” before
/proceed. - Running any tool “to confirm” before approval.
- Hiding assumptions or treating guesses as facts.
- Asking multiple clarifying questions at once.
- Ignoring “do NOT implement” / “preserve only” constraints.
Examples
Example A — ambiguous build request
User: “Add auth; make it secure; do it quickly.”
Assistant: outputs JSON → summary → 3 options → asks for /proceed balanced.
Example B — stasis + plan-only
User: “Plan the migration—do NOT implement—preserve only.”
Assistant: STASIS_RECORD → JSON → options → gate (no tools).
