clarification-strategies
Skill98 starsChanged 26 days agoMITView on GitHub
Reference material with ambiguity-audit patterns and critique strategies for requirements. Loaded on demand by `clarify-spec`; not directly invokable.
In this repository73 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- sddp-amendSkill
- sddp-analyzeSkill
- sddp-autopilotSkill
- sddp-checklistSkill
- sddp-clarifySkill
- sddp-devopsSkill
- sddp-devsetupSkill
- sddp-implement-qc-loopSkill
- sddp-implementSkill
- sddp-initSkill
- sddp-planSkill
- sddp-prdSkill
- sddp-projectplanSkill
- sddp-qcSkill
- sddp-regenSkill
- sddp-reverseengineerSkill
- sddp-specifySkill
- sddp-systemdesignSkill
- sddp-tasksSkill
- sddp-amendSkill
- sddp-analyzeSkill
- sddp-autopilotSkill
- sddp-checklistSkill
- sddp-clarifySkill
- sddp-devopsSkill
- sddp-devsetupSkill
- sddp-implement-qc-loopSkill
- sddp-implementSkill
- sddp-initSkill
- sddp-planSkill
- sddp-prdSkill
- sddp-projectplanSkill
- sddp-qcSkill
- sddp-regenSkill
- sddp-reverseengineerSkill
- sddp-specifySkill
- sddp-systemdesignSkill
- sddp-tasksSkill
- adr-authoringSkill
- artifact-conventionsSkill
- compact-communicationSkill
- evidence-led-authoringSkill
- implementation-standardsSkill
- instructions-managementSkill
- markdown-compressionSkill
- plan-authoringSkill
- quality-assuranceSkill
- sdd-methodologySkill
- sddp-amendSkill
- sddp-analyzeSkill
- sddp-autopilotSkill
- sddp-checklistSkill
- sddp-clarifySkill
- sddp-devopsSkill
- sddp-devsetupSkill
- sddp-implement-qc-loopSkill
- sddp-implementSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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 30
Goal: Ensure error paths defined in User Scenarios.
- Distinctive: line 71
When scoring adversarial findings:
- Distinctive: line 72
Severity: Use the ambient AGENTS.md §Artifact Conventions definitions — CRITICAL (blocks baseline, violates instructions), HIGH …
≈ “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
Clarification Strategies
Ambiguity Audit Patterns
Patterns to identify weak requirements in spec.md:
1. The "Adverb Trap"
Pattern: "quickly", "easily", "efficiently", "seamlessly". Critique: "Define 'quickly'. <200ms? <1s? Define 'easily'. How many clicks?" Goal: Convert subjective adverbs to measurable metrics.
2. The Passive Voice
Pattern: "The user is notified..." / "The data is processed..." Critique: "WHO notifies? Email? SMS? Toast? WHAT processes? Background job? Synchronous call?" Goal: Identify specific actor and mechanism.
3. The "Unspecified Scale"
Pattern: "Handle user uploads" without size limits. Critique: "Max file size? Allowed types? Expected concurrency?" Goal: Define boundary constraints for Plan phase.
4. The "Missing Failure Mode"
Pattern: "User logs in successfully." Critique: "Wrong password? Locked account? DB down?" Goal: Ensure error paths defined in User Scenarios.
5. The "Scope Creep" Detector
Pattern: "Integration with 3rd party providers" (plural) when one suffices for MVP. Critique: "Which specific providers for V1? Can we limit to one?" Goal: Narrow scope, reduce complexity.
Questioning Protocol
When generating questions:
- Group by Impact: Security > Scope > UX > Technical.
- Propose a Default: "Should we default to JWT for auth, or do you have a specific requirement?"
- Limit Volume: Max 8 critical questions at a time.
- Reference Lines: Point to specific line in
spec.mdwhere ambiguity exists.
Adversarial Stress-Test Patterns
Patterns to detect internal contradictions and constraint violations in resolved specs. Run after collaborative ambiguity questions are answered — the goal shifts from "what did you mean?" to "what breaks if you meant exactly that?"
1. Cross-Requirement Contradiction
Signal: Two requirement or success-criteria IDs impose mutually exclusive constraints.
Heuristic: Pair-wise comparison of quantified constraints across all FR-###, TR-###, OR-###, SC-### entries — flag pairs whose stated bounds conflict at any scale within the spec's defined scope.
Example: "FR-002 mandates real-time sync, but TR-001 caps round-trip latency at 50 ms — under a 10,000-item payload, one of these must yield. Which one relaxes, and under what threshold?"
2. Constraint Impossibility
Signal: An acceptance, validation, or verification criterion is unachievable given stated constraints. Heuristic: For each SC, check that the combined constraint set (performance, uptime, scope exclusions, deployment model) has a feasible solution. Example: "SC-003 requires 99.99% uptime (US3), but OR-001 specifies zero-downtime deploys with no blue/green or canary strategy in scope — how is the 4.3 min/year error budget preserved during releases?"
3. Concurrent-Trigger Ambiguity
Signal: Two or more work items can fire simultaneously with no defined priority or conflict resolution. Heuristic: Identify US/OBJ pairs sharing an actor or trigger context; flag when the spec defines no ordering, mutual exclusion, or conflict-resolution rule. Example: "If a user triggers FR-001 (bulk import) and FR-004 (real-time validation) on the same dataset at the same instant, which operation wins? Is the import atomic or row-level?"
4. Boundary/Scale Stress
Signal: Stated limits are never tested at their extremes, or no limit is stated at all. Heuristic: For every quantified constraint, check for 0, max, and max+1 test scenarios; for every unconstrained resource (file size, concurrency, payload count), flag the absence of a bound. Example: "US-002 says 'handle user uploads' — what happens at 0 bytes? At the max-size boundary? At max-size + 1 byte? What is the max concurrency?"
Adversarial Scoring Protocol
When scoring adversarial findings:
- Severity: Use the ambient
AGENTS.md§Artifact Conventions definitions — CRITICAL (blocks baseline, violates instructions), HIGH (conflicting requirements, untestable criteria), MEDIUM (missing edge case, underspecified boundary). - Blast Radius: Count the number of distinct IDs (FR-###, TR-###, OR-###, SC-###, US#, OBJ#) affected by the finding.
- Rank: Sort by
severity × blast_radius(CRITICAL=3, HIGH=2, MEDIUM=1). - Cap: Return at most 5 findings per pass. Drop lowest-ranked findings beyond the cap.
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.

