Build Strategic Docs Through Guided Q&A Sessions
Builds durable strategic docs one question at a time - AI asks, the user answers, AI patches, never proposes content.
Why it matters
Create durable strategic documents (life priorities, vision statements, principles, frameworks, ranked lists) by guiding the user through a structured interview where AI asks one question at a time, patches the file incrementally with the user's answers, and never proposes content-ensuring the document reflects the user's authentic voice and thinking.
Outcomes
What it gets done
Ask single, focused questions to surface domain knowledge and priorities without bundling multiple queries
Patch document sections incrementally after each answer using file operations, never overwriting existing content
Distinguish unordered sets from ranked lists, explicitly confirming priority order when sequence matters
Maintain strict question-answer-patch loop discipline, updating the file before asking the next question
Install
Add it to your toolbox
Run in your project directory:
curl -fsSL https://spark.entire.vc/get/ag-interview-style-doc-building | bash Overview
Interview-Style Doc Building
Builds durable strategic docs one question at a time - the AI asks, the user answers, the AI patches the file into the right section, never proposing content of its own. Use it for a new SSOT file or a structured doc the user wants to author themselves. Not for day planning, task triage, or anything where the AI should propose content first.
What it does
Builds durable strategic docs interview-style: the AI never proposes content - it asks one question, the user answers, the AI patches the file, then asks the next question. The file itself is the conversation's output, updated incrementally rather than drafted and handed over.
When to use - and when NOT to
Use it when building a new single-source-of-truth file (life priorities, life vision, principles, frameworks, ranked lists), filling out a structured doc the user explicitly wants to author themselves, or running quarterly/annual reviews where the user's own words go into the file. It is NOT for day planning (use day-plan instead), task triage (use organize-tasks), or anything where the AI proposes content first.
Inputs and outputs
The loop: create the file with a skeleton (header, sections, "to be filled in" placeholders) using a single write_file call - after that, never overwrite, only patch; ask exactly one concise, specific, open-ended question; wait for the answer without queuing the next question; patch the file with the user's answer in the correct section; then re-ask, either the next question or a follow-up if the answer was incomplete, repeating until the file is complete. Hard rules govern every step: one question at a time, never multiple in a single message; patch, never overwrite, after the initial skeleton; update the file before asking the next question, in that order; treat any list the user gives in response to "which X should we cover?" as an unordered set, never inferring rank or sequence from the order typed - ask explicitly ("Which of these is #1?") if ranking is needed; ask about a referenced person's role or dynamic rather than "who is X?"; keep questions and acknowledgments free of snark, attitude, or filler; and never add speculative sections, edge cases, or "anything else?" prompts unless the user asks. For ranked lists specifically, each rank gets patched in one at a time as the user confirms it, with the user's own words preserved in the entry.
Integrations
Question design favors domain-discovery over confirmation (asking what wins against everything else, not confirming a guess), surfaces information the AI doesn't already have, uses engine-move framing where applicable ("what's the thing that, if true, makes the rest obvious?"), and prefers concrete framing over abstract ("what's #2, the domain that wins against everything except #1?" over "tell me about your second priority"). The file-patching pattern after each answer: read the relevant section if not already in context, patch with the placeholder or previous entry as old_string and the updated content as new_string, then confirm the diff before moving on. Named pitfalls to avoid: assuming order from an unordered set and writing it as a numbered ranking without confirming; bundling even two questions into one message; overwriting the file instead of patching a specific section, which destroys prior content; filling empty sections with AI-generated content instead of leaving them empty until the user provides it; and skipping the file update between question-and-answer pairs, which lets the doc fall out of sync. It pairs with, but is distinct from, other skills: day-plan uses a different, non-interview task-triage pattern; organize-tasks is Todoist-specific; and memory-management is separate, handling persona and preferences rather than file content.
Who it's for
Users who want to author their own strategic or reflective documents in their own words, one confirmed answer at a time, rather than have an AI draft the content for them to edit afterward.
Source README
Interview-Style Doc Building
The user's preferred mode for creating durable strategic docs. AI does NOT propose content - AI asks one question, the user answers, AI patches the file, AI asks the next question. The file IS the conversation's output, updated incrementally.
When to Use
- Building a new SSOT file (life priorities, life vision, principles, frameworks, ranked lists).
- Filling out a structured doc the user explicitly wants to author themselves.
- Quarterly/annual reviews where the user's words go into the file.
NOT for: day planning (use day-plan), task triage (organize-tasks), or anything where AI proposes content first.
The Loop
- Create the file with a skeleton (header, sections, "to be filled in" placeholders). Single
write_filefor the new file. After this, NEVER overwrite - onlypatch. - Ask ONE question. Concise. Specific. Single-faceted. Open-ended where possible.
- Wait for the answer. Don't ask the next question yet.
- Patch the file with the user's answer in the correct section.
- Re-ask - next question, or follow-up if the answer was incomplete.
- Repeat until the file is complete.
Hard Rules
- One question at a time. Never dump multiple questions in a single message. The user has flagged this.
- Patch, don't overwrite. After the initial skeleton, use
patchfor every update. Neverwrite_fileto an existing doc. - Update the file BEFORE asking the next question. Order: receive answer → patch file → ask next question. Not the reverse.
- Lists from the user are UNORDERED SETS. When the user lists items in response to "which X should we cover?" or "what are the Ys?", that is a SET, not a ranking. Never infer rank, priority, or sequence from the order they typed them. If you need ordering, ask explicitly: "Which of these is #1?"
- Ask dynamics, not names. When the user references a person, don't ask "who is X?" - ask about the role/dynamic.
- No snark, no attitude, no filler. Concise questions, concise acknowledgments.
- No speculative additions. Don't invent sections, edge cases, or "anything else?" prompts unless the user asks.
Question Design
- Domain-discovery, not confirmation. "What wins against everything else?" - not "Is Business #1?"
- Surface new reality. Each question should pull out info AI doesn't already have.
- Engine-move framing where applicable. "What's the thing that, if true, makes the rest obvious?"
- Concrete over abstract. "What's #2 - the domain that wins against everything except #1?" beats "Tell me about your second priority."
File Patching Pattern
After each answer:
- Read the relevant section (if not already in context).
patchwithold_string= placeholder or previous entry,new_string= updated content with the user's words preserved.- Confirm the diff. Move on.
For ranked lists, append one rank at a time:
1. **Business** — Q2 #1 goal: ...
2. **Health** — get below 81.0 kg, sleep 9h/day, ...
Each rank gets patched in as the user confirms it.
Common Pitfalls
- Assuming order from a set. The user lists "A, B, C, D" → AI writes "1. A, 2. B, 3. C, 4. D" → the user flags it. ALWAYS confirm rank explicitly.
- Asking too many questions at once. Even bundling 2 violates the rule.
- Overwriting the file instead of patching specific sections - destroys prior content.
- Adding AI-generated content to fill out sections. Sections stay empty until the user provides the content.
- Skipping the file update between Q&A pairs - the doc falls out of sync.
Pairing with Other Skills
day-plan- different pattern (task triage), not interview-style.organize-tasks- Todoist-specific.memory-management- separate from this; persona/preferences go to memory.
Limitations
- Adapted from
davidondrej/skills; verify local paths, tools, credentials, and agent features before acting. - For commands, remote access, scheduling, browser automation, or file-changing workflows, get explicit user approval and confirm the target environment first.
Discussion
Questions & comments · 0
Sign In Sign in to leave a comment.