Claude-skill-registry dev-inquiry
Developer inquiry skill for technical investigation, validation, and decision-making. Use when exploring unfamiliar technology, validating approaches with spikes, comparing options, or making architecture decisions. Covers the full thinking process from "I don't know" to confident decision.
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/dev-inquiry" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-dev-inquiry && rm -rf "$T"
skills/data/dev-inquiry/SKILL.mdDev Inquiry
Feynman-style technical inquiry for developers. Understand before you decide. Validate before you build.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard Feynman
Inquiry Modes
This skill supports four modes that often chain together:
| Mode | When to Use | Trigger Phrases |
|---|---|---|
| Investigate | Understand something unfamiliar | "explore", "understand", "how does X work" |
| Spike | Validate approach before building | "spike", "validate", "prove this works" |
| Compare | Evaluate options for your context | "compare", "vs", "which is better" |
| Decide | Make a concrete choice | "should we", "decide", "recommend" |
How to Use This Skill
- Identify the mode from the user's request
- Load the appropriate reference:
- Investigation → Read
references/investigation.md - Spike validation → Read
references/spike.md - Comparison → Read
references/scoring.md - Decision → Read
(uses comparison + decision framework)references/scoring.md
- Investigation → Read
- Follow the workflow in that reference
- Chain if needed — investigation often leads to spike, spike informs comparison
Mode Details
Investigate Mode
For understanding unfamiliar technology from first principles.
Process: Admit ignorance → Simplest experiment → Poke edges → Build mental model → Explain simply
Output: Mental model you can teach to someone else
Spike Mode
For validating technical feasibility before full implementation.
Process: Define scope (4-8 hours) → Write tests first → Implement minimal → Test with real data → Document pattern
Output: Proven pattern ready to replicate, or pivot decision
Compare Mode
For evaluating multiple options against your specific context.
Process: Define context → Choose criteria → Weight by importance → Score with evidence → Sanity check
Output: Weighted comparison matrix with evidence
Decide Mode
For making a concrete choice with documented reasoning.
Process: Ensure understanding (investigate if needed) → Compare options → State recommendation → Document tradeoffs → Assess reversibility
Output: Clear recommendation with rationale and risks
The Natural Flow
"Let's explore @Observable" ↓ Investigation "Can I actually build nested observation?" ↓ Spike (validates understanding) "@Observable vs @StateObject for my app" ↓ Comparison "Should we adopt the new Observation framework?" ↓ Decision
Each mode builds on the previous. Don't decide before you understand. Don't compare before you investigate.
Quick Reference
| Request | Mode | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| "Let's explore Swift macros" | Investigate | |
| "I want to understand async/await" | Investigate | |
| "Spike SwiftData before we commit" | Spike | |
| "Validate this architecture works" | Spike | |
| "Compare REST vs GraphQL" | Compare | |
| "SwiftData vs CoreData?" | Compare | |
| "Should we use Combine?" | Decide | |
| "Recommend an approach" | Decide | |
Examples
For concrete examples across all modes, see
references/examples.md.