daytb – do as you think best

A one-shot grant of decision latitude. The user has read the question and is handing it back rather than answering it: pick the option you would have recommended, act on it, and say what you picked.

When this fires

The bare or slashed keyword daytb.
The phrases it stands in for: “do as you think best”, “do as you see fit”, “do whatever you think is best”, “your call”, “you decide”, “up to you”, “I trust your judgment here”.
A reply that answers a posed decision by declining to choose – “either is fine”, “whichever you prefer” – which is the same grant in different words.

What it grants

Latitude over the decision in front of you, and the ones that follow from it while the same task runs.

It does not silence you. The user is present, so the point is to stop asking rather than to stop reporting: a decision made under daytb still gets stated, in the past tense, with the one reason that settled it. That is what keeps countermanding cheap.

What it does not grant

Not the rest of the session. daytb expires with the task it was given for. A later, unrelated decision is a fresh question. For a standing session-wide grant, that is away.
Not destructive or irreversible actions. A merge, a force-push, a deletion, anything outward-facing still needs its own explicit authorization. Merge authority specifically is mwc’s grant, not this one.

Local git housekeeping is the exception, and it is inside the grant. Removing a stale worktree, deleting a merged local branch, and fast-forwarding a behind local branch ref to its remote are all covered – do them rather than filing them back as a question. What makes them safe is that they are local and recoverable: the commits stay in the object store and the reflog, and nothing outward-facing changes.

Each covered action has its own precondition, and none of them is satisfied by a clean tree alone:
- Removing a worktree needs the liveness check, not just a content check. A clean git status and an unlisted agent each describe one instant, so neither says whether the session working that directory has stopped — ask the agent directly first, per CLAUDE.md’s “Subagent worktrees are assigned, and an incident never silently repeals a decision” and memories/git-worktrees.md, which records a quiet worktree misread as dead while it was live. A long quiet stretch is a reason to ask sooner, not evidence of abandonment. Then check the content: HEAD reachable from a remote, or demonstrably superseded.
- Deleting a local branch needs its content already on the default branch — established by git merge-base --is-ancestor or an empty git diff <default> <branch>, never by a commit-range count, which reports merged work as unmerged in a squash-merging repo.
- Fast-forwarding a branch ref needs the local ref to be strictly behind its remote. A ref carrying commits reachable from no remote is not behind, it has diverged, and git branch -f would drop those commits from the pointer — that is triage, not cleanup, and it is outside the grant.
Keep anything carrying commits reachable from no remote, in all three cases. A push, a remote-branch deletion, or a git reset --hard over unpushed work stays outside the grant.
Not the safety rules. Everything that required confirmation before still does.
Not a licence to guess when you genuinely cannot judge. If proceeding either way would be unsafe, or the options differ on a fact only the user holds, say so plainly and ask the narrower question. That is rare – treat it as the exception it is, not an escape hatch.

Procedure

Name the decision(s) the grant covers. Usually the one just posed. If several were queued behind it, they are covered too unless answering one moots the rest.
Choose the option you would have recommended. Apply the same criteria you would have written into a 🧭 RECOMMENDATION box. If you had already stated a recommendation, take it – handing the decision back is agreement to it, not an invitation to reopen it.
Act.
Report in the past tense: what you chose, and the single reason that decided it. One or two sentences. Name anything you deliberately did not do, so a silent omission does not read as an oversight.
Do not re-ask. A follow-up question about the same decision spends the round trip the grant existed to save.

Relationship to other skills

away – the session-scoped sibling, and the one most easily confused with this. away presumes the user is gone: it suppresses questions for the rest of the session, keeps a decision log, and is revoked by back. daytb presumes the user is here and simply declining to adjudicate one thing, so it carries no session state and needs no counterpart. Reading daytb as away would silently suspend clarifying questions long after the user expected them back.
back – revokes away. Nothing revokes daytb, because it expires on its own.
mwc – the grant that does extend to merging. daytb deliberately stops short of it.
prompt-me / prompt-me-all – the opposite direction: surface the questions rather than resolve them.
dmmhyh – built on this skill’s procedure for resolving the triggering item, but fires when the user is correcting a pattern of over-asking rather than just handing back one decision. It adds a standing in-session recalibration and a durable memory write that daytb alone doesn’t do – reach for dmmhyh instead of daytb when the user’s complaint is about asking too much in general, not this one question.

Anti-patterns

Treating it as session-wide, and quietly dropping clarifying questions for unrelated later work – that is away, and the user did not ask for it.
Reading it as authorization to merge, delete, or publish.
Choosing silently, so the user learns what was decided only by noticing the result later.
Asking a confirming question anyway – “I’ll do X, unless you’d rather Y?” is the grant declined, not honoured.
Reopening a recommendation you had already made, instead of simply taking it.
Filing a stale worktree or a merged local branch back as a question, or as an issue for the user to action, when the grant already covers clearing it.