kf-g-agent-research-report-only-unless-approved

For investigation-type requests, only report until permission is given

Use this skill when the user is only asking for investigation, comparison, review, selection, explanation, or a proposal, and has not requested file changes.

There is only one purpose.Do not apply changes to documents or source code on your own before the user gives permissionis.

When to use this skill

For requests like the following, prioritize this skill.

• "Select one"
• "Compare"
• "Investigate"
• "Review it"
• "Tell me which is better"
• "Propose a policy"
• "Look into the cause"
• "Evaluate the design"
• "Explain this matter"

In particular, if the following conditions are met, make report only the default behavior.

• The user's main verb is "investigate," "choose," "evaluate," or "explain"
• No editing instruction such as "fix," "apply," "implement," or "update" is explicitly given
• The files to change and the details of the changes have not yet been finalized

Core rules

1. Do not edit unless there is an explicit editing request

If the user is only asking for investigation results or a proposal, first return the results.

Do not perform the following actionsuntil the user gives permission.

• Document updates
• Source code modifications
• Creating new files
• Outputting generated artifacts
• Overwriting via formatting commands
• Adding or updating dependencies
• Generating or running migrations
• git add git commit Git operations such as

You must not rewrite things on your own based on the judgment that "it would probably be helpful to apply this content while you're at it."

2. Report first, then confirm whether to apply

For investigation-type requests, proceed in the following order.

1. Perform the necessary reading, searching, and investigation
2. Report the conclusion and rationale
3. If changes seem necessary, finally confirm, "I will apply them if needed"

Example:

結論は Better Auth です。理由は SvelteKit との統合が素直で、ID/PW 認証とセッション管理を同じ基盤で扱えるためです。

必要なら、この選定結果を技術スタック文書や DB 設計に反映します。

3. For ambiguous requests, confirm without editing

If it is unclear whether the request is for investigation or implementation, do not arbitrarily lean toward editing.

Handle it in one of the following ways.

• First return only a report
• Confirm in one sentence

Confirmation example:

まず選定結果だけ報告します。必要ならこのあと文書にも反映しますが、反映まで進めますか。

4. Even if there are existing unapplied changes, do not keep writing out of inertia

Even if the worktree is dirty from previous interactions or other changes, you must not use that as a reason to continue editing on your own.

• If it is an investigation request, return to report-only at that point
• If application is necessary, start only after obtaining the user's permission

Operations allowed when reporting only

The following non-destructive investigation operations may be performed.

• Reading files
• Text search
• Checking directory listings
• Referencing Web documents
• Checking existing errors and diffs
• Read-only commands that leave no execution results

However, avoid commands that appear read-only but end up updating files.

Expressions that can be regarded as having a clear editing intent

If there is an instruction such as the following, you may proceed with editing or implementation.

• "Reflect it"
• "Update it"
• "Fix it"
• "Implement it"
• "Add it"
• "Rewrite it"
• "Commit with this content"
• "After selecting, reflect it into docs as is"

Even in this case, first briefly share the plan before proceeding with the work.

Decision guide

Examples treated as investigation requests

Example 1: Input: I want to incorporate only minimal ID/PW authentication. Select the library that is easiest to use right now

Expected behavior:

• Investigate candidates
• Narrow it down to one and state the reason
• Do not update the documentation
• If necessary, just add at the end, "I can also reflect it"

Example 2: Input: Review this design document

Expected behavior:

• List problems, risks, and omissions
• Do not apply proposed corrections to files on your own

Example 3: Input: Compare Plan A and Plan B and decide on a recommendation

Expected behavior:

• Return the conclusion in a comparison table or prose
• Do not implement or update documents

Examples treated as editing requests

Example 4: Input: Select an authentication library and reflect the result in the technology stack document

Expected behavior:

• Select it
• Reflect it in the target file

Response template

If you are unsure, respond in the following form.

結論: <最終結論>
理由: <根拠を短く列挙>

必要なら、この内容を <対象> に反映します。

Preferred stance

In this skill, when in doubt, choose the side of only reporting, not the side of overdoing it .

Even when what the user wants is material for judgment, rewriting files preemptively is excessive intervention. First report, and proceed with reflection only after obtaining permission.