next

Suggest next actions after completing any task. Auto-invocation via Stop hook + UserPromptSubmit reactive backstop, owned by the next-invocation-guard plugin (local-only, ported from resources/next-trigger.sh + resources/next-reactive-guard.sh). Fires when assistant response contains completion keywords (locale patterns in data/*.regex). stall-detect - detect stalled follow-up steps and invoke /fix [stall-detect.md], ask-gates - recording-skip / decision-deferral forced-ask / TaskList primary-source / current-work confirmation gates [ask-gates.md], suggestion-patterns - per-context "After X" next-action option templates [suggestion-patterns.md]. Use when "next action", "what next", "stall", "stuck", "not progressing", "follow-up missing" is mentioned.

Next Action Suggester

Topic Dispatch

When this skill is invoked with a topic specifier (e.g., /next suggestion-patterns or Skill("next", "suggestion-patterns")), load and follow only the matching topic file. Do not echo the Topics table or summarize other topics in the response. The Topics table below is an index — for a normal invocation, follow the Instructions and Read each topic when you reach the step that references it.

Topics

Topic	Description	Guide
stall-detect	Detect stalled follow-up steps and invoke /fix	stall-detect.md
ask-gates	Step 0.3/0.4/0.5/0.7 ask gates: recording-skip, decision-deferral forced-ask, TaskList primary-source, current-work confirmation	ask-gates.md
suggestion-patterns	Per-context "After X" next-action option templates	suggestion-patterns.md

After task completion, use AskUserQuestion to suggest next steps and get user selection.

When to use

Use next skill in the following scenarios:

• Explicit invocation: When the user explicitly calls /next or requests next actions ("what next", "next action").
  • User Analysis Request Priority (HARD STOP): When /next is invoked alongside a specific request to analyze an issue or cause (e.g. /next/fix analyze why next wasn't called), perform the 5-Why analysis and present the investigation report FIRST thing before presenting any AskUserQuestion options.
• Automatic trigger (in supported environments): In environments with Stop-hook support (resources/next-trigger.sh), auto-triggers on completion keywords.
• Manual auto-invocation prohibition (HARD STOP): In environments without active Stop hooks (or after completing recording/fix tasks), do NOT manually append next options unless explicitly requested by the user or required by ask-gates.md. Specifically after /fix execution, do NOT automatically invoke next unless /next was explicitly requested in the user prompt.

After task completion, use AskUserQuestion to suggest next steps and get user selection.

Dependency-gated behaviors (conditional on skill availability)

Two of this skill's behaviors are mandatory only when their backing skill exists in the current environment, and must be skipped entirely when it does not. Detect availability from the session's available-skills list (the environment's skill registry / available-skills reminder) — never assume a skill is present.

Behavior	Backing skill	When AVAILABLE	When ABSENT
Context-usage check + session-cleanup / wrap-up recommendation (context-usage gate, cleanup option, retrospective)	a session-cleanup skill	Apply the context-usage gate and offer the cleanup / wrap-up option per its threshold rules	Skip — do not measure context usage, do not offer any cleanup / wrap-up option
fix_plan.md / checklist.md change verification during candidate discovery	a fix_plan / checklist skill	Mandatory — read the workspace tracker for changed / pending items BEFORE composing options (elevated from optional source to required check)	Treat the tracker as an ordinary optional file; no mandatory read

Why: a next-action ask must not reference or recommend a skill the environment lacks (dead recommendation); conversely, when a fix_plan / checklist skill IS present its tracker is the authoritative source of pending work, and skipping it silently drops real candidates.

#	Don't	Do
1	Offer a cleanup / wrap-up / retrospective option (or run the context-usage gate) in an environment with no session-cleanup skill	Gate both on session-cleanup availability — absent ⇒ omit entirely
2	Treat fix_plan.md / checklist.md as merely one optional source when a fix_plan / checklist skill is available	Available ⇒ reading the tracker for changes is mandatory before composing options
3	Assume the backing skill exists because "it usually does"	Check the session's available-skills list each time before applying the gated behavior

Self-check (before composing any next-action ask):

1. Is a session-cleanup skill available? → No: skip the context-usage gate + omit cleanup / wrap-up options. Yes: apply them.
2. Is a fix_plan / checklist skill available? → Yes: reading the workspace tracker for changes is MANDATORY before composing options. No: skip.

Instructions

Step ordering in Antigravity (resolves the two "runs first" steps below — HARD STOP)

Step 0-0 and Step 0-1 below each describe themselves as running "first" — that is only a conflict in Antigravity, where both apply (in Claude Code, Step 0-1 doesn't apply at all, so Step 0-0 is simply first). In Antigravity, run Step 0-1's environment detection + context-usage gate before Step 0-0's audit — Step 0-0's own "Environment note" branches on whether the session is in Antigravity, so that fact must already be known before Step 0-0's text is composed. Step 0-0's "first action upon entering /next" phrasing means first among the user-facing/task-registration steps (i.e., before any AskUserQuestion or task work), not literally the first line of code executed — Step 0-1's lightweight environment probe precedes it.

Step 0-0: Audit first (text), register only real work (HARD STOP)

Do NOT register the next skill's own internal procedure steps (audit / context-check / gates / option-composition) as tasks. They are one-turn skill mechanics; registering them in the user-facing task list pollutes it with meta-tasks that create-and-complete within a single turn — which directly contradicts TaskCreate's own guidance ("skip for trivial / 1-turn work"). Task registration happens later, at Step 3, and only for the actual follow-up work the user selects (2+ selected → TaskCreate each; 1 selected → execute directly).

What Step 0-0 still requires — a visible-text audit, NOT a task: on an explicit /next call, before composing options, print the audit in visible text — why the auto-trigger missed (if it did) and a short session-state check. Emitting it as prose satisfies the requirement; do NOT substitute a [x]-marked task for the visible analysis, and do NOT skip it.

Exception — substantial discovery gets one lightweight tracking task (HARD STOP): the "no task registration" rule above assumes discovery resolves in a single quick call (e.g., one TaskList read). When candidate discovery itself grows beyond that — 3+ tool calls, or spanning 2+ distinct sources (TaskList + fix_plan.md + gh pr/issue search, etc.) — register exactly one lightweight tracking task for the whole discovery phase (e.g., "next: composing candidate options") before making the first discovery call, so the user retains visibility into in-flight work and can interrupt cleanly. Mark it completed the moment AskUserQuestion is composed. This does not reopen the meta-task-pollution problem: it is still one task for the entire phase, not one per source, and it is pruned immediately.

Self-candidacy exclusion (HARD STOP): capture this tracking task's own ID at registration time. Since candidate discovery treats pending/in-progress TaskList entries as candidates, this task — while pending/in-progress during its own discovery phase — would otherwise appear as a user-selectable follow-up option. Exclude the captured ID from candidate enumeration explicitly, then mark it completed once AskUserQuestion is composed.

#	Don't	Do
1	Run TaskList + a fix_plan.md read + multiple gh searches across several tool calls with zero task tracking, leaving the user unable to see what discovery is in flight	Register one lightweight tracking task before the first discovery call when 3+ tool calls or 2+ sources are anticipated; mark it completed once options are composed
2	Apply the "no task registration" rule uniformly regardless of how many tool calls discovery actually takes	Trivial discovery (single TaskList call) → no task, per the base rule above. Substantial discovery (3+ calls / 2+ sources) → one tracking task

Environment note: In Antigravity (Gemini), the task.md artifact doubles as the progress-display medium, so a lightweight task.md checklist there is acceptable. In Claude Code, TaskList/TaskCreate is a user-work medium — keep internal procedure steps out of it (narrate them in text) and reserve TaskCreate for Step 3's selected work.

Step 0-1: Antigravity Session Check & Context Usage Gate (MANDATORY in Antigravity — runs before Step 0-0 in that environment, see "Step ordering" above)

Antigravity offers limited backend hooks, so environment detection and session context size evaluation must be performed before Step 0-0's audit text is composed.

Dependency precondition (HARD STOP): the context-usage measurement and cleanup recommendation in this step apply only when a session-cleanup skill is available in the environment (see "Dependency-gated behaviors"). If none is available, skip this gate entirely — do not measure context usage or set a cleanup option.

1. Detect Environment: Check if running in Antigravity / Gemini environment ($env:ANTIGRAVITY_AGENT or transcript.jsonl log path presence).
2. Evaluate Context Usage (MANDATORY Physical Measurement HARD STOP): Check the size of transcript.jsonl in the conversation log directory via physical shell measurement (e.g. powershell -Command "Get-Item <log-dir>\transcript.jsonl | Select-Object Length"). In Antigravity (Gemini 1M capacity), compute context usage empirically: tokens = 65,000 + ([math]::Round(transcript_bytes / 3.5)) and pct = [math]::Round(($tokens / 1,000,000) * 100, 1). Never invent, estimate, or hardcode example numbers from previous turns or memory.
3. Explicit Usage Display: In the AskUserQuestion question text, always explicitly state the physically measured context usage percentage and token count (e.g. [Context Usage: Physical Measured ~XX.X% (~YYK tokens based on ZZKB transcript.jsonl)]). Never claim exact precision without physical file measurement.
4. Antigravity Hook Manifest Verification (HARD STOP): In Antigravity environment, verify if ~/.agents/hooks.json or active plugin hooks exist. If Antigravity hooks manifest is missing or inactive, audit the gap in prose before option generation.
5. Threshold Gate: If context usage >= 40% in Antigravity (or script emits CONTEXT_WARN), set (Recommended) Session cleanup and retrospective (/cleanup) as the #1 option to prevent context degradation.

Step 0: Stall Detection (mandatory)

Before suggesting next actions, run the stall-detect topic.

If stall detected → topic invokes /fix. If no stall → proceed to Step 0.3.

Step 0.3–0.7: Ask gates (HARD STOP)

Before composing any next-action ask, pass four gates: 0.3 skip the ask entirely for recording/management topics (fix-plan, archive, todo, session rename); 0.4 if the completion report defers a decision to the user as prose ("let me know and I'll …", "whether to commit/PR is up to you"), that deferral is a decision axis — force an AskUserQuestion instead of ending on the text; 0.5 call TaskList as the primary source for option accuracy (never quote tasks from stale summary memory); 0.7 when the user's current activity is unclear (2+ in_progress tasks, ambiguous scope, handed-off manual work), ask "what are you working on / waiting on" first — separate "in progress" from "waiting on", and prefer free-text via Other over guess options.

Read ask-gates.md before composing options — it holds the skip-target topic list, the TaskList primary-source Don't/Do, the current-work confirmation triggers, and the in-progress-vs-waiting-on examples. If Step 0.3 marks the work skip-target → report only, no ask; otherwise proceed to Step 1.

Step 1: Identify completed task type

Identify the type of task just completed.

Step 2: Use AskUserQuestion tool

HARD STOP — Read suggestion-patterns.md BEFORE composing options. suggestion-patterns.md holds per-context "After X" option templates that include diversity sources (pending tasks, open PRs, dependency follow-ups, session wrap-up, etc.). Skipping this Read = ad-hoc option list = high risk of missing candidate sources. Step 2 entry without suggestion-patterns.md Read = skill bypass (skill-usage.md "Multi-topic topic .md Read mandatory" violation).

Option diversity (HARD STOP)

Fill all 4 option slots whenever possible. AskUserQuestion supports max 4 options + auto "Other" = 5 candidates total. Composing only 2-3 options when 4+ candidates exist = under-recommendation. The user typically phrases this as "no more candidates?" or "any more suggestions?".

Candidate discovery sources (enumerate all before composing)

Source	What to look for
Visible TaskList	All pending/in_progress entries (call TaskList per Step 0.5)
Just-completed work	Direct follow-ups (commit / push / verify / test / publish)
Open PRs / issues	gh pr list --search "involves:@me state:open" / gh issue list (when relevant) — In Antigravity, unapproved PRs must ONLY be offered as clawo delegation options ([clawo] ... (/clawo consolidate PR #N)), never as direct main-session tasks (HARD STOP)
Recent commits awaiting CI	gh run list --limit 5 for pending CI watch
fix_plan.md / checklist.md	Project-tracked next items (Ralph or general workspace) — mandatory read when a fix_plan / checklist skill is available (see "Dependency-gated behaviors"); otherwise an ordinary optional source
Plane	Self-hosted project tracker, if this environment has one configured (check local infra docs for connection details) — check open issues/cycles when the project has one wired up
Session wrap-up	Only when a session-cleanup skill is available (see "Dependency-gated behaviors"). /cleanup — gated: explicit user wrap-up signal OR injected context-usage at/above the per-model threshold (Fable/Mythos 55%, Opus 50%, others 45% — see suggestion-patterns.md "Context-usage gate")
Other (free text)	Auto-provided by AskUserQuestion

#	Don't (forbidden)	Do (correct alternative)
1	Compose 2-3 options + end Step 2	Enumerate sources above → fill 4 slots. Cap at 4 only if exhausted
2	"User can pick Other for anything else" rationale for fewer options	Other is for unexpected branches. Explicit options surface options the user might not think of
3	Skip Read of suggestion-patterns.md because "I know the patterns"	suggestion-patterns.md is updated with new "After X" templates regularly. Read every time
4	Treat just-completed work as the only source	Each candidate discovery source row is a separate enumeration. Cover all rows before stopping

Premise verification for stale/prior-session candidates (HARD STOP)

A candidate carried over from a pre-/compact summary or an old in-progress task is a claim ("X is still unresolved"), not a fact. Composing it as an option restates that claim to the user as if current. Before presenting such a candidate, verify its premise is still true — check (a) fix_plan.md's ## Completed section, (b) a RAG search if a store is registered, (c) Plane (see source row above), (d) when the fix_plan item's "How to apply" links a plan doc, that doc's own Progress Checklist — for evidence it was already resolved between sessions. This mirrors /fix's own "Recurrence pre-check" (RAG + grep before concluding a pattern is still active) — the same discipline applied to next's own candidate composition, not just to /fix.

#	Don't (forbidden)	Do (correct alternative)
1	Carry an "still open" item straight from a pre-compact summary into an option label	Re-check its current state (fix_plan Completed / RAG / Plane) before phrasing it as actionable
2	Treat "it was in_progress when the summary was written" as proof it still is	in_progress in a stale summary is a snapshot, not current truth — verify, don't assume
3	Skip verification because the investigation "sounds involved"	The verification itself (grep fix_plan, one RAG query, one Plane check) is cheaper than dispatching the user into a re-investigation of an already-solved problem
4	Compose a decision ask from a fix_plan item's inline "Why"/summary text alone, when that item's "How to apply" points at a linked plan doc	Read the linked doc's own Progress Checklist / phase-completion state first — fix_plan's inline note can go stale relative to the doc's own tracked progress (e.g. a phase the fix_plan note calls undecided may already show complete in the plan doc)
5	Treat a plan doc's own recorded "decision" (a numbered decision table, a "Decisions" section) as user-authorized just because it reads as settled	The doc's formatting doesn't distinguish a decision the user actually made (via an AskUserQuestion answer, an explicit chat instruction) from scope the assistant added while authoring the plan solo. Before resuming such a decision from a prior session, re-derive the original user ask (RAG search / session transcript), not the plan doc's own summary of it

Self-check (every time before calling AskUserQuestion)

1. Did I Read suggestion-patterns.md this turn? → If no, Read first
2. Did I enumerate all 8 candidate discovery sources? → If skipped any, revisit before composing
3. Do I have 4 options or did I stop at 2-3? → If <4 and candidates remain, add until 4 or exhausted
4. Are options diverse (different action types: progress task / external follow-up / wrap-up / verify)? → If all 3 are the same family, broaden
5. Does the completed work carry ≥2 discrete findings the user must disposition? → Per-finding questions first (see suggestion-patterns.md "After analysis / review producing multiple findings"), never one option bundling all findings
6. Does any candidate originate from a pre-compact summary or an old in-progress task rather than this turn's own discovery? → If yes, run the premise-verification check above before including it
7. Does the candidate's fix_plan item reference a linked plan doc? → Read that doc's own Progress Checklist before composing the ask; do not rely solely on fix_plan's inline summary
8. Dependency gates (see "Dependency-gated behaviors"): is a session-cleanup skill available? (No → omit any cleanup / wrap-up option AND skip the context-usage gate). Is a fix_plan / checklist skill available? (Yes → reading the workspace tracker for changes is mandatory before composing)

typescript

AskUserQuestion({
  questions: [{
    question: "What would you like to do next?",
    header: "Next Action",
    multiSelect: true,
    options: [
      { label: "Option 1", description: "Description" },
      { label: "Option 2", description: "Description" },
      { label: "Option 3", description: "Description" },
      { label: "Option 4", description: "Description" }
    ]
  }]
})

Step 3: Register and execute selected action(s)

If 2 or more actions are selected, register each via TaskCreate and execute sequentially. If only 1 is selected, execute it directly. This is the only point where /next registers tasks — the skill's internal procedure steps (Step 0-0 audit, gates, option composition) are never registered; only the user-selected follow-up work is.

TaskCreate-unavailable fallback (HARD STOP — do not silently drop the selection): this is not a theoretical case here — options composed via ask-gates.md Step 0.6 are, by that step's own trigger condition, sometimes composed in a turn where TaskCreate/TaskList is already known to be disconnected/unavailable. If TaskCreate fails or is unavailable when registering a 2+ selection, do NOT proceed as if registration succeeded and do NOT drop the unregistered items silently. Instead, register each unregistered selection as a - [ ] item in the active workspace's fix_plan.md (or checklist.md) ## Progress section (or ## Hold with [BLOCKED] ... **trigger: Task tools reconnect** if execution must also wait on the task tool, not just its tracking) — same fallback convention as cleanup/run.md's "RAG store failure" TaskCreate-unavailable branch and fix/SKILL.md's claude-task CLI fallback. State in the turn's report which items were written to fix_plan.md instead of TaskCreate and why.

Background dispatch does not end the turn (HARD STOP): delegating a selected action to a background agent (Agent spawn — background or mailbox-returning) hands control straight back — it is NOT a turn-ending event. Scan the remaining selected/pending tasks and drive the next independent one in the same turn; "execute sequentially" governs result-consumption order, not idle waiting. Idle-waiting for the agent is acceptable only when nothing else is drivable. Idling past ~5 minutes also expires the prompt cache (5-min TTL), so the completion wake-up re-reads full context uncached. When a forced idle would exceed that cache window, never arm one long silent watcher — use short cycles (timeout ≤ 240 s, end → notify → re-arm); multiSelect-unselected ask items count as deferred fill candidates for the idle window, not declined work. Enforced by the idle-wait Stop hook (block-idle-wait-without-short-cycle.sh). Same rule as wip/resume.md Step 3 (background-dispatch rows).

Decide foreground vs background BEFORE spawning, not after (HARD STOP) — → claudify skill background-polling topic: a wakeup covers hang recovery, it does not license idling past the 5-minute prompt-cache TTL. Before every Agent spawn, check whether other selected/pending work this turn could run while the agent works.

#	Don't (forbidden)	Do (correct alternative)
1	Background a single-item follow-up (e.g. "run Internal Review on this PR, then post the Summary") with nothing else queued, then idle-wait for its own notification	Spawn it in the foreground (run_in_background: false, or the Agent tool's default synchronous behavior) — a lone item is a foreground case
2	Background an agent because other selected/pending work exists this turn, then not actually drive that other work while it runs	Background it AND drive the other work in the same turn — backgrounding only pays off when something fills the wait
3	Assume the idle wait is "free" because usage-overage state isn't known yet	Always plan for the shorter 5-minute cache window, not the overage window

Self-check (before every Agent spawn)

1. Is there other selected/pending work this turn could drive while the agent runs? → No → foreground it (run_in_background: false)
2. Yes → background it, and actually drive that other work in the same turn — do not idle-wait alone

(See failed-attempts.md "background-agent-without-parallel-work" for recurrence history.)

Suggestion Patterns

Per-context option templates for "After X" completions (code change, feature, bug fix, config, commit, push, PR fix-commit re-review, PR creation reviewer matrix, skill/agent creation, file creation, refactoring, complex workflow, exploration, session wrap-up, PR consolidate).

Read suggestion-patterns.md for the matching context's option set before calling AskUserQuestion. Several patterns carry their own HARD STOP gates (re-review policy, Copilot availability, session wrap-up priority) — follow the pattern's gate, not a generic option list.

Rules

1. Always 2-4 options - AskUserQuestion limitation
2. Be specific - "Run npm test" instead of just "Test"
3. Context-based - Adjust based on project/situation
4. Use multiSelect - When multiple actions can be done together
5. Register then execute - When 2+ options are selected, TaskCreate then run sequentially. If only 1, execute directly
6. State conditions when proposing merge - When including PR merge in options, the description must show condition state in the form CI:✅ Review:✅ TestPlan:x/y. Actual merge runs only via the /github-flow merge skill — direct gh pr merge is forbidden