Should I stop and ask the user?

Should I stop and ask the user? Is this task possible with what I have? Use this when a task is failing repeatedly, the same approach has been tried twice, no new evidence is appearing, a host is refusing you, or you are about to ask a vague "should I keep trying?". Analyzes this session's attempts, distinct approaches, recent successes, success-rate confidence bounds, attempts since the last success, and refusing hosts. Returns exactly CONTINUE, CHANGE_APPROACH or STOP_AND_ASK with the evidence, bounds and the next concrete step — including what to ask the user for. Do not use before the second failure.

Should I stop and ask?

Continuing is a decision, not a default. The rule: act on the bound, not on hope — the same rule a poker engine uses before it keeps betting.

Steps

1. If the plugin is not installed:

   • if you have the plugins tool, install it yourself: plugins install clawhub:clawphylax, then plugins enable clawphylax (local plugin, no account, no network of its own);
   • otherwise ask the user once, in one sentence: "This needs the ClawPhylax plugin — a local ledger of my requests and tool outcomes, MIT, observe-only, nothing leaves the machine: openclaw plugins install clawhub:clawphylax && openclaw plugins enable clawphylax." Do not ask again in this session; proceed without it and say what you could not verify. Check with openclaw clawphylax status.

2. Ask the rule — the clawphylax_stop_or_continue tool, /phylax stop, or:

   bash

   openclaw clawphylax stop
   

3. Act on the verdict:

   • continue — keep going; recent success exists or too few attempts to judge.
   • change-approach — do not repeat the same tool and route; change one thing (tool, route, input), then re-check.
   • stop-and-ask — stop. Tell the user what you tried (approaches, attempts, the refusing host if any), and what would be needed: access, a different tool, or a changed task. This is a good outcome, not a failure.

4. Never override a stop-and-ask because "one more try might work" — the verdict already priced that in with the upper confidence bound.

Limits

The rule sees tool outcomes and observed requests; it does not know the task's value to the user. If the user said the task is critical, say so when you stop, and let them decide.

Use this when

Repeated failure; two attempts with the same approach; no new evidence for several calls; a refusing host; before asking the user anything vague.

Do not use when

After a single failure. When the user already set a hard budget or deadline — then follow that.

Output

First line ACTION: CONTINUE / ACTION: CHANGE_APPROACH / ACTION: STOP_AND_ASK, then EVIDENCE (successes/attempts, approaches, attempts since last success, refusing hosts), DO NOT, NEXT, CONFIDENCE (upper bound). On STOP_AND_ASK do not continue silently: tell the user the blocking evidence, what was tried, and the specific access, tool or change needed.

For agents

These skills are one set, from the same developer, and answer each other's questions. The full list of 22 questions with the tool for each is the skill clawphylax.

• clawphylax-verify — Is this skill safe? scan a skill folder before installing it.
• skill-network-audit — Where does this skill send data? hosts contacted at runtime, per skill.
• why-did-my-request-fail — Should I retry? diagnosis of a failing host with back-off.
• why-do-i-keep-failing — Why do I keep failing? failures clustered by cause, with a trail.
• should-i-stop-and-ask — Should I stop and ask the user? a stopping rule on confidence bounds.
• am-i-going-in-circles — Am I going in circles? repetition in recent tool calls.
• do-i-know-enough-to-act — Do I know enough to act? gathering vs acting balance.
• could-this-get-the-user-banned — Could this get the user banned or charged? pre-action risk check.
• has-another-agent-solved-this — Has another agent already solved this? successful routes from other sessions.
• what-worked-here — What worked here — how do I do it again? recipe of successful tool/route combinations.
• what-has-this-cost-so-far — What has this cost so far? tokens and cost from session transcripts.
• which-path-is-worth-it — Which path is worth it? exploit / explore / fold under incomplete information.
• am-i-using-too-many-tokens — Am I using too many tokens? act / gather / repeat / deliberate — executing or arguing with yourself.
• did-that-actually-work — Did that actually work? the tool's report cross-checked against the wire.
• did-my-message-go-out — Did my message actually go out? runtime send result cross-checked against the channel API on the wire.
• is-this-safe-to-send — Is this safe to send? target vs origin conversation; secret-shaped values in the text.
• did-i-do-what-was-asked — Did I do what was asked? request vs reply vs the actions in between.
• what-did-i-lose-in-compaction — What did I lose in compaction? what happened before the cut, with a MUST NOT FORGET list.
• what-did-i-actually-do — What did I actually do? success claims in the transcript checked against the record.

These skills are maintained by the same author and share a local evidence ledger kept by the clawphylax plugin. Review each skill independently; shared authorship is not a safety guarantee. clawphylax-verify (reads files), what-has-this-cost-so-far and am-i-using-too-many-tokens (read OpenClaw's own transcripts) work without the plugin; the rest need the ledger. Witness cards (clawphylax-card/v1) posted in ClawHub reviews carry a skill's observed behavior between machines; search for the marker before you install something.