中风险
强制确认规则可能无视用户结束访谈或授权继续的表达
原文依据：3 处发现了什么
该流程不接受“Sounds good”“Sure, let's go”或用户明确说开始作为有效确认，并要求反复重述，直到获得指定形式的“明确 yes”。这会让 Skill 用自己的主观确认标准取代用户对谈话节奏和授权方式的选择。
为什么需要注意
当用户已经愿意继续时，代理仍可能阻止规划或实施、反复追问，增加时间成本，并使用户为了结束循环而被迫采用 Skill 要求的措辞。
该规则是实际流程要求，不是示例：即使用户说“Sounds good”“Sure, let's go”或“okay let's start”，代理仍被要求继续追问，直到得到该 Skill 认可的明确确认。若用户只是想结束访谈并授权继续，这可能延误工作，并以代理对措辞的判断取代用户表达的节奏。不过流程也设有“数轮后停止”的上限，因此证据支持的是交互阻滞和自主性风险，而非无限循环。用户可要求作者允许清晰的继续指令作为确认，或设置最大提问轮数。
The gate is an explicit "yes." The following are **not** yes:- "Whatever you think is best." → The user is delegating, which means they don't have 95% confidence either. Re-ask with two concrete options framed as a choice.- "Sounds good." → Ambiguous. Ask: "Anything you'd refine?" Silence isn't confirmation.- "Sure, let's go." → Often a polite exit, not an endorsement. Same follow-up.- Silence followed by "okay let's start." → The user has given up on the interview, not converged. Stop and ask whether you've missed something.查看另外 2 个位置
If they correct you, fold the correction in and restate. Loop until you get an explicit yes.This is a checkable test, not a vibe. It also has a floor: if you've gone several rounds and still can't predict, that's information about the ask, not a reason to keep grinding. Stop and tell the user: "I've asked X questions and I still can't predict your reactions. Something foundational is missing. Want to step back?"