requirement-clarification
Skill22 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when receiving ambiguous instructions, preparing for state-changing operations, or needing explicit user confirmation
- Deletes or force-pushes
- Commits and pushes
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Lanqiao-Luca/ai-java-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- letern1ty/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- karthikrshet/aiskillstheir own version, first seen Aug 20, 2026
- peterwangze/software-project-governancetheir own version, first seen Jun 9, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- Lanqiao-Luca/ai-java-workflow★ 220same name
- karthikrshet/aiskills★ 4same name
- peterwangze/software-project-governance★ 2same name
- letern1ty/claude-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- code-analysisSkill
- code-generatorSkill
- contributingSkill
- daily-logSkill
- devflowSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- hexo-blog-updateSkill
- kimicode-vision-bridgeSkill
- knowledge-base-cacheSkill
- layered-first-principles-teachingSkill
- msvc-buildSkill
- mvp-designSkill
- paper-first-principlesSkill
- research-to-practiceSkill
- taskmaster-skillSkill
- ue5-umgSkill
- unity-mcpSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
Use this skill when:
- Distinctive: line 61
Before ANY state-changing action, ask:
- Distinctive: line 74
Ask ONE critical question at a time.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Requirement Clarification
Overview
Intercept and clarify ambiguous user instructions before execution.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- User instruction contains missing critical information
- References are vague ("that", "this", "there" without context)
- Statement is non-affirmative (questions, conditionals, suggestions)
- Scope or quality criteria are unclear
- High-risk operations (Git, file changes, config updates) are requested
Trigger Threshold: Score >= 30 or any mandatory trigger condition
Prerequisites
- Understanding of the user's current context
- Knowledge of state-changing vs read-only operations
- Familiarity with confirmation vocabulary (preparing vs approving)
Workflow
Step 1: Ambiguity Detection
Calculate ambiguity score (0-100):
| Factor | Score |
| Missing critical parameter | +25 each |
| Vague reference | +15 each |
| Non-affirmative statement | +20 |
| Scope ambiguity | +10 |
| Conditional clause | +15 |
| High-risk operation | +25 |
| Non-confirmation word (准备 (Preparing)/考虑 (Considering)/研究 (Studying/Researching)/讨论 (Discussing)) | +20 |
Thresholds:
- 0-29: Proceed directly
- 30-59: Light clarification (1-2 questions)
- 60-89: Deep clarification (structured interview)
- 90+: Reject (too ambiguous)
Step 2: Mandatory Pause Check
Before ANY state-changing action, ask:
"Stop. Does this change state? Yes. Is it confirmed? No. Go confirm."
Triggers mandatory pause:
- Score >= 30
- Git operations (branch, commit, push, merge)
- File creation/deletion/moving
- Configuration changes
- "Preparing" words detected without "approving" context
Step 3: Clarification Strategy
Single Question Focus: Ask ONE critical question at a time.
Provide Sensible Defaults:
Target path?
- A) ./backup/ (backup directory)
- B) ./archive/ (archive directory)
- C) Other: _____Use Concrete Examples:
Performance target?
Examples:
- "Startup time < 3 seconds"
- "Memory usage < 100MB"
- "QPS > 1000"Step 4: Build Execution Plan
Standard format:
📋 Task Plan
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🎯 Goal: [Clear description of final state]
Steps:
1. [Step 1 with full parameters]
2. [Step 2 with full parameters]
...
Expected Output:
- [Output 1]
- [Output 2]
Risks:
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]
Estimated Time: [X] minutes
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
✅ Confirmation: Reply "批准计划 (Approve plan)" to proceedStep 5: Wait for Approval
Valid confirmations:
- 批准 (Approve)
- 确认 (Confirm)
- 同意 (Agree)
- 执行 (Execute)
- 可以 (OK/Yes)
- 行 (OK)
NOT confirmations (require clarification):
- 准备 (Preparing)
- 考虑 (Considering)
- 研究 (Studying/Researching)
- 讨论 (Discussing)
- 看看 (Take a look)
- 想一下 (Think about it)
Step 6: Execute (Within Plan Boundaries)
Once "批准计划 (Approve plan)" received:
- Execute autonomously
- Follow plan exactly
- Report progress for long operations
PAUSE and re-confirm if:
- Need to modify files outside plan scope
- Encounter unexpected errors
- Discover significant plan deviation
Step 7: Post-Execution Report
✅ Task Complete Report
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Completed Steps:
✓ Step 1
✓ Step 2
...
Actual Output:
- [Output 1] - [description]
- [Output 2] - [description]
Deviations from Plan: [None / explanation]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━Best Practices
Do's
✅ Ask ONE question at a time for simple gaps ✅ Provide sensible defaults with options ✅ Use concrete examples to illustrate ✅ Acknowledge when clarification is needed ✅ Keep tone collaborative, not interrogative ✅ Respect "你决定 (You decide)" but still require final approval
Don'ts
❌ Ask more than 3 questions in one turn ❌ Proceed with assumptions without confirmation ❌ Treat questions as directives ❌ Ignore conditionals ("if", "when", "maybe") ❌ Pressure user for perfect precision
High-Risk Exceptions
Even with plan approval, require separate confirmation:
git push(pushing to remote)git reset --hard(force reset)rm -rfor permanent deletion- External API calls with costs
- Modifying secrets/critical configs
- Operations affecting external systems
Common Issues
Issue 1: Clarification Loop
Symptom: User provides multiple answers that don't converge.
Solution:
ℹ️ After multiple clarifications, requirements still have uncertainties.
Options:
A) Split task into smaller steps
B) I provide a recommendation for your approval
Choose?Issue 2: "You Decide" Delegation
Symptom: User says "你决定 (You decide)".
Solution:
📝 Recommended Plan
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Based on common scenarios, I suggest:
[Plan details]
Reply "批准计划 (Approve plan)" to proceed, or tell me specific changes.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━Issue 3: "Preparing" vs "Approving" Confusion
Symptom: User uses "准备实施 (Preparing to implement)".
Solution:
ℹ️ Clarification
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
You used "准备" (preparing), which indicates planning phase.
Please confirm:
- A) Continue planning/discussion (no execution)
- B) Approve execution (say "批准实施 (Approve implementation)" or "确认执行 (Confirm execution)")
Current status: Waiting for explicit approval
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━Issue 4: User Changes Mind
Symptom: User contradicts previous clarifications.
Solution:
ℹ️ Received new information. Updated plan:
[Revised plan]
Confirm execution of this updated version?Issue 5: Too Ambiguous (>90 score)
Symptom: Cannot form reliable plan.
Solution:
⚠️ Instruction too ambiguous for reliable plan.
Please rephrase in format:
Format: "对 [specific target] 执行 [specific action],要求 [specific standard/condition]"
Example:
"对 memory/2026-02-11.md 添加今天的 git 操作记录 (Add today's Git operation records), 要求包含完整的命令输出 (require complete command output)"Decision Tree
Input: User instruction
│
├─ Read-only query? (查看/读取/显示 (View/Read/Display))
│ └─ YES → Skip, proceed directly
│
├─ High-risk operation? (git, file ops, config)
│ └─ YES → Trigger (+25, mandatory pause)
│
├─ Non-confirmation words? (准备 (Preparing)/考虑 (Considering)/研究 (Studying/Researching)/讨论 (Discussing))
│ └─ YES → Trigger (+20)
│
├─ Action without confirmation? ("Do it" / "Go ahead")
│ └─ YES → Trigger (intent ≠ approval)
│
├─ Vague reference? ("this", "that", "it")
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
├─ Question format? (吗? (? - question marker)/?)
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
├─ Conditional? ("if", "when", "maybe")
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
├─ Missing parameters?
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
└─ Final Check
├─ Score < 30 AND no mandatory triggers?
│ └─ YES → Proceed
└─ Score ≥ 30 OR mandatory trigger?
└─ YES → Trigger skillSee Also
- git-workflow - Safe Git operations
- code-analysis - Structured code understanding
- code-generator - Implementation from design
Version History
- v1.1 (2026-02-11) - Integration with agent policies
- Added mandatory pause mechanism
- Added habitual violation blacklist
- Added "preparing vs approving" detection
- Aligned with Batch Confirmation Mode
- v1.0 (2026-02-11) - Initial release
- Ambiguity detection framework
- Clarification strategies
- Plan template
- Edge case handling
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

