clarify-intent
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a task is classified design or build, before exploring solutions — pin the real goal (not the means), the constraints and key assumptions, and the success criteria, then show them to the human. Part of meta-workflow (Step ①); runs upstream of superpowers brainstorming.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- daniel-kindl/dkstacktheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Hugo-DDT/clarify-intenttheir own version, first seen Sep 18, 2026
- irfanannaafi19/Clarify-Intenttheir own version, first seen Aug 28, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- Hugo-DDT/clarify-intent★ 26same name
- daniel-kindl/dkstack★ 1same name
- irfanannaafi19/Clarify-Intent★ 1same 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- execute-with-specSkill
- freeze-acceptanceSkill
- independent-verifySkill
- meta-workflowSkill
- remediation-loopSkill
- task-classificationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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 30
Default to the full version.
≈ “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
Step ① — Clarify what you are really doing
Why this exists: it is easy to do the right thing in the wrong direction. Before exploring how, fix what counts as the problem solved — otherwise every later step is efficient motion toward the wrong place.
Done = all three pieces are pinned
1. The real goal — what, and why. Chase it to the real goal: a means is not a goal. "Build an oracle" is a means; "the extractions are accurate" is the goal. The current task is usually a means to a higher goal — ask one level up: this artifact serves what?
2. Constraints + key assumptions — each rated importance × certainty. Include dependency constraints, and run the circular-dependency check: your measure must not depend on the thing it measures. (Judging extraction quality by the recall of that same extraction is circular — it will tell you what you want to hear.)
3. Success criteria (seed) — 1–3, each tagged measurable or judgment.
Give judgment ones a semi-objective anchor (e.g. "audit the existing store with a rule — is
what it flags agreed garbage?"). These seed the expected values in the Step ② acceptance table.
Light vs heavy
Default to the full version. Fast-path only when all three pieces are writable on the spot and none is a low-certainty judgment call. Even the fast path must show the three pieces to the human to invite correction — "I've decided it's clear" is not a license to skip silently. If you can't tell which path → take the full one.
A confident-sounding human ("just follow the spec") does not mean the three pieces are done — check means-vs-goal and circular dependency anyway.
Relationship to superpowers
This is upstream of brainstorming. Brainstorming explores solutions; this fixes what counts as the problem solved. Pin the three pieces here, get a thumbs-up, then hand off to superpowers brainstorming for solution exploration. Design/build tasks go through this even if you're tempted to brainstorm directly.
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.