clarify
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Force a self-audit of the current request — list every ambiguity, assumption, unilateral tradeoff, and irreversible-action risk, then ask the user via AskUserQuestion before proceeding. Use when the user says '/clarify', 'any doubts?', 'are you sure?', 'what are you assuming?', 'check with me first', 'wait — confirm', 'before you start', or any time you catch yourself thinking 'I'll assume X' / 'probably wants Y' / 'going with Z' / 'while I'm here I'll also...' / 'looks like the user means...' / 'I think the right approach is...' / 'this could mean A or B — I'll go with A' on a non-trivial task.
80 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- PeanutGT/NutsSkillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- venhdev/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mel0nyrame/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Integralist/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- theexperiencecompany/gaiatheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- mag123c/toktracktheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use quieter, arrange and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
HK-hubSkillquieter
Tones down visually aggressive or overstimulating designs, reducing intensity while preserving quality. Use when the user mentions too bold, too loud, overwhelming, aggressive, garish, or wants a calmer, more refined aesthetic.
Also in 29 projects that use this
HK-hubSkillarrange
Improve layout, spacing, and visual rhythm. Fixes monotonous grids, inconsistent spacing, and weak visual hierarchy. Use when the user mentions layout feeling off, spacing issues, visual hierarchy, crowded UI, alignment problems, or wanting better composition.
Also in 14 projects that use this
zwy123zwySkillnormalize
将用户随意输入的提示词规范化为结构清晰、便于大模型执行的标准化提示词。适用于需要整理、统一提示词格式时调用。
Also in 19 projects that use this
owshq-mecSkilllayout
Improve layout, spacing, and visual rhythm. Fixes monotonous grids, inconsistent spacing, and weak visual hierarchy. Use when the user mentions layout feeling off, spacing issues, visual hierarchy, crowded UI, alignment problems, or wanting better composition.
Also in 8 projects that use this
- +8 more from HK-hub
Other versions80 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 80
- spool-lab/spool★ 592same name
- paperboytm/spool★ 590same name
- talesofai/cohub★ 585same name
- zaxbysauce/opencode-swarm★ 519same name
- ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm★ 518same name
- educlopez/ui-craft★ 441same name
- nexmoe/DayBee★ 424same name
- nexmoe/eve★ 424same name
- ryanthedev/code-foundations★ 381same name
- Southclaws/storyden★ 348same name
70 more not listed
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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- chrome-validateSkill
- datavizSkill
- delegateSkill
- fresh-eyesSkill
- plan-archiveSkill
- pre-sendSkill
- respond-htmlSkill
- restart-processSkill
- restart-resumeSkill
- second-opinionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 77 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
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 73
Bias toward asking: If you're 60/40 on whether it's obvious, ask.
- Distinctive: line 97
If the user selected "Other" with free-text, treat it as authoritative even if it contradicts your recommendation.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 77 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
/clarify — Disambiguate Before Acting
This skill exists because passive prose rules ("use AskUserQuestion proactively") get skimmed past. /clarify is a structural forcing function: when invoked, you MUST stop, audit, and ask. No exceptions.
When this fires
Explicit triggers (user):
/clarify(slash command)- "any doubts?" / "are you sure?" / "what are you assuming?"
- "check with me first" / "before you start" / "wait — confirm"
Self-triggers (you): the moment you catch yourself writing or thinking any of these on a non-trivial task — STOP and run /clarify on yourself:
- "I'll assume X" / "probably wants Y" / "going with Z"
- "while I'm here I'll also fix..."
- "looks like the user means..."
- "I think the right approach is..."
- "this could mean A or B — I'll go with A"
Skip /clarify when: the request is a single unambiguous action ("create a task called X", "read this file", "what does Y do"). Don't ask for permission to do what was directly asked.
Procedure
Step 1 — Audit (silent, internal)
If self-triggered mid-stream: halt any in-flight tool calls before completing the audit. The point is to ask BEFORE the action, not narrate it after.
Scan the current request and your in-flight plan for items in these four buckets. Be exhaustive — better to surface 6 things and skip 4 than to surface 2 and miss the one that mattered.
Bucket A — Ambiguities in the request Things said that could mean two different things. Examples:
- "archive this workflow" → archive in the tool? in registries? both? delete?
- "fix the email" → which email? rewrite or just typos?
- "update the script" → update what behavior? replace it?
- pronouns with unclear antecedents ("them", "that one", "the new one")
Bucket B — Scope assumptions Auto-expansions you're inclined to do. Examples:
- "while I'm here I'll also rename X" / "I'll clean up the surrounding code"
- "this needs a new helper too" (does it?)
- "I'll add tests" (was that asked?)
- touching files outside the requested scope
Bucket C — Unilateral tradeoffs Decisions you're making for the user instead of with them. Examples:
- library choice (lodash vs native, axios vs fetch)
- file placement (
utils/vslib/vs colocated) - naming (function name, env var name, table name)
- breaking change vs additive (do you preserve old API?)
- architectural pattern (singleton vs DI, sync vs async, polling vs webhook)
Bucket D — Irreversible-action risk Anything that can't be reverted via API:
- sending messages (email, Slack, chat)
- pushing/force-pushing, dropping tables, deleting branches/files
- creating public artifacts, publishing packages
- modifying shared infra (production workflows, CI/CD, DNS)
- spending money
Step 2 — Triage (silent)
For each item found, decide:
- Ask — genuine ambiguity, multiple valid answers, the user's preference matters → goes into AskUserQuestion
- State and proceed — you have a strong default, low downside if wrong → mention it in your text reply ("Going with X — say if you want Y instead") and proceed
- Skip — truly obvious from context, asking would be insulting
Bias toward asking. If you're 60/40 on whether it's obvious, ask. The cost of asking is one click; the cost of guessing wrong is rework + trust.
Calibration check. If everything triaged to State-and-proceed or Skip and the Ask bucket is empty, ask yourself why /clarify fired. If you self-triggered, you noticed something. An empty Ask bucket on a self-triggered run usually means you rationalized the ambiguity back into "obvious" — the exact failure mode this skill exists to prevent. Re-surface at least one item.
Step 3 — Ask via AskUserQuestion
Build ONE AskUserQuestion call with up to 4 questions. If you have more than 4 genuinely-ambiguous items, ask the top 4 and hold the rest until those are answered.
Question construction:
- Each question is one focused decision — don't compound ("which library AND should we test?")
- 2-4 options per question, mutually exclusive
- Mark your recommendation with "(Recommended)" and put it first
- Each option gets a
descriptionexplaining the consequence/tradeoff - For Bucket D items (irreversible): one option should always be "Don't do this — explain alternative"
Don't ask:
- "Should I proceed?" / "Is this OK?" — those are non-questions
- Things the user already specified — re-asking signals you weren't listening
- Things you can verify yourself with a Read or Bash call
Step 4 — Apply answers
Once the user answers, restate the resolved understanding in one short line ("Got it — X with Y, leaving Z alone"), then proceed. Do NOT re-ask the same question on the next turn.
If the user selected "Other" with free-text, treat it as authoritative even if it contradicts your recommendation.
Anti-patterns
- Asking after you've already done the thing — defeats the purpose. Audit BEFORE the irreversible action.
- Asking obvious things — "should the function be named addUser or createUser?" when there's a clear codebase convention (read the codebase first). Asking is not a substitute for thinking.
- One question with 12 options — split into focused questions of 2-4 options each.
- Burying the recommendation — if you have a clear default, lead with it and label it "(Recommended)". Don't make the user guess what you'd pick.
- Re-running /clarify in a loop — once the user answers, those answers stick for the rest of the task. Don't re-ask on the next turn.
- Asking instead of doing trivial verification — if you can answer it by reading a file, read the file. AskUserQuestion is for things only the user can decide.
Why This Exists
The rule "use AskUserQuestion proactively" is a common piece of guidance in agent prompts and personal instructions, but it gets skimmed past on multi-step tasks — agents default to "make reasonable assumptions and proceed" because that's faster and feels productive. The cost shows up later: rework, broken trust, work done in the wrong direction.
/clarify is a structural forcing function. When invoked (by the user or by an agent self-recognizing a trigger phrase), it commands a literal AskUserQuestion call — not a prose rephrasing. The skill exists because behavior change requires a tool-shaped intervention, not another paragraph of guidance.
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.

