agentleFS
genkovichgenkovich/sdd/skills/clarify/SKILL.md

clarify

Skill187 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use to run an ambiguity sweep over a written spec.md and close every under-specified point before planning or design proceeds — so two engineers can't reasonably build different things from the same spec. Triggers on "clarify {slug}", "find ambiguities in {slug}", "is the spec ready", "sharpen the spec", "/sdd:clarify {slug}", "прояснити специфікацію", "знайди неоднозначності {slug}", "чи готова специфікація". Re-reads the spec, dispatches a clean-context devil's-advocate subagent to list where the spec forks, then for each ambiguity runs AskUserQuestion to RESOLVE it (tighten §1/§5/§6 in place) or DEFER it (→ §8 Open questions with owner+due). Output: an updated docs/features/{slug}/spec.md with every ambiguity resolved or deferred — none dangling. Hard-refuse if spec.md is missing.

80 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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-hubSkill

    quieter

    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-hubSkill

    arrange

    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

  • zwy123zwySkill

    normalize

    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-mecSkill

    layout

    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

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 77 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Fast lane (XS/S): when specify produced zero §8 open questions and flagged no ambiguous AC, the skip of this stage is offered by specify's …

    line 39
  2. Distinctive:

    Every ambiguity from the self-sweep + the subagent is Resolved (spec tightened in its native section) or Deferred (a §8 row with both owner …

    line 54

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Skill: clarify

Ambiguity sweep over a written spec.md. It hunts the spec for under-specified points — vague terms, unmeasured NFRs, AC missing error/authz/edge behavior, unstated assumptions, conflicting requirements, undefined domain terms, missing actors, scope creep — then dispatches a clean-context devil's-advocate subagent that re-reads the spec fresh and answers one question: where would two engineers reasonably build different things from this? Each ambiguity it surfaces is closed with the user: either resolved (the spec is tightened in place) or deferred (a §8 Open-Questions row with owner + due). It exists so glossary / design never proceed on an ambiguous spec.

This is a sweep, not a full authoring stage — it does not run the shared Socratic loop or the coherence critic. Its shared dependencies: → ../_shared/critic.md (clean-context dispatch discipline only — the subagent here hunts AMBIGUITY, not coherence drift) · ../_shared/ask-style.md (resolve/defer question phrasing).

Depth governs how aggressively the sweep hunts + the per-finding question volume → ../_shared/interview-depth.md. (Every surfaced ambiguity is still Resolved or Deferred at every level — that's a floor, not a dial.)

Spec tightenings follow artifact_language — but the existing spec's language wins over the setting (never retro-translate mid-sweep); headings and machine tokens stay English → ../_shared/artifact-language.md.

Owner

PM + Tech Lead (the spec's co-authors resolve their own ambiguities). PM owns vague-term / scope / missing-actor calls; Tech Lead owns unmeasured-NFR / under-specified-AC / conflicting-requirement calls.

Inputs

  • <slug> — same feature slug used by specify.
  • Gate (hard-refuse if missing): docs/features/<slug>/spec.md. Absent → STOP and point: «run specify <slug> first — clarify sharpens an existing spec, it does not write one».
  • (Optional) CONTEXT.md — two-level: read both repo-root (project-wide) and docs/features/<slug>/CONTEXT.md (feature-scoped; wins on conflict) → ../glossary/SKILL.md; if present, ## Glossary is canonical; an "undefined-term" finding for a word already glossed at either level is a false positive (drop it).
  • Fast lane (XS/S): when specify produced zero §8 open questions and flagged no ambiguous AC, the skip of this stage is offered by specify's handoff (→ the fast lane in ../_shared/size-matrix.md) — the user takes it there; clarify itself never auto-skips.

Protocol

  1. Gate + set interview depth. test -f docs/features/<slug>/spec.md → missing = refuse with the pointer above. Read the spec (and ## Glossary from both root CONTEXT.md and docs/features/<slug>/CONTEXT.md if present — per-feature wins — to suppress false "undefined-term" hits). Then set the interview depth (the opening question): read interview_depth from .claude/sdd.local.md if present (else default medium), and — unless a --depth=easy|medium|hard arg was passed — ask ONE depth-selection AskUserQuestion phrased per ../_shared/ask-style.md, with the saved/medium value as the «(Recommended)» first option. The level tunes how adversarially the sweep + subagent hunt (easy: only build-divergence that changes behavior, with assumptions stated; medium: balanced; hard: adversarial, every fork surfaced) and the per-finding question volume → ../_shared/interview-depth.md.
  2. First-pass self-sweep. Walk the spec against the eight ambiguity classes in ./references/ambiguity-checks.md (vague-term / unmeasured-NFR / under-specified-AC / unstated-assumption / conflicting-requirement / undefined-term / missing-actor / scope-creep). Note candidate findings with a §ref each — do not edit yet.
  3. Devil's-advocate subagent (the core mechanic). Dispatch the devils-advocate agent — subagent_type: "sdd:devils-advocate" (model per judgment_model, roster default opus; effort high; clean context — it never saw this conversation). Pass only the slug + the spec path; it Reads spec.md (and CONTEXT.md) itself — inline nothing — and returns "two engineers would diverge here" findings. The dispatch follows the contract in ../_shared/agent-roster.md (clean-isolated context, cited findings, NO_AMBIGUITIES if none). If devils-advocate is unavailable at runtime, fall back to a general-purpose Agent with the prompt body in ./references/ambiguity-checks.md.
  4. Merge + dedupe. Union the self-sweep (step 2) with the subagent findings (step 3); collapse duplicates (same §ref + same class). Keep the highest-impact first (conflicting-requirement > under-specified-AC > unmeasured-NFR > undefined-term > missing-actor > scope-creep > vague-term > unstated-assumption). If the merged set is empty → report «spec is unambiguous», stamp nothing, suggest glossary/design.
  5. Resolve or defer, per finding. For each finding, one AskUserQuestion phrased per ../_shared/ask-style.md, offering: Resolve now (user picks/dictates the tightening) · Defer to §8 (→ Open-Questions row, owner + due captured in a follow-up; missing either = stays unresolved, re-ask once) · Not an ambiguity (false positive — drop it, e.g. a term already in CONTEXT). Every finding ends Resolved or Deferred — none dangling. Each answer is written to spec.md immediately (step 6), before the next question. Depth tunes the question volume, not the floor: at easy, the skill resolves the unambiguous, low-stakes findings itself with sensible tightenings and lists them in a stated-assumptions ledger for a batch veto, asking only the behavioral/high-stakes forks; at hard, it asks every finding. The «zero dangling» rule holds at every level.
  6. Write each resolution back the moment it lands (not batched at the end → ../_shared/write-and-commit.md). Apply a Resolve edit in the spec's native section (tighten the §5 AC into business-observable form, replace a §6 adjective with a numeric target + measurement, fix a §1 term, add a missing §4 actor/US, cut a §3 scope-creep line). Append a Defer as a §8 checkbox row - [ ] <question>? Default now: <X>. — owner: <name/role>, due: <date or stage>. Keep a short edits-log (one line per finding: class · §ref · resolved|deferred · before→after).
    • Undefined-term findings reconcile the glossary in-flow (a hard rule, at every depth). When an undefined-term finding is Resolved, immediately invoke glossary <slug> for that term — compare it against CONTEXT.md and add/update the definition now, not as a deferred note. clarify never resolves a term by inventing a meaning inline; the canonical definition lands in CONTEXT.md so design/downstream read one source.
  7. Stamp + self-check + commit. Set updated_at: <today> in the frontmatter. Re-read spec.md from disk and confirm specify's invariants held through the tightening (§5 AC stays free of HTTP/status/error-code/SQL tokens; §6 numbers carry a measurement; §4 roles only from the glossary) and zero findings dangle. Then commit per ../_shared/write-and-commit.md, one commit per changed document: clarify: <slug> spec.md (N resolved, M deferred), clarify: <slug> CONTEXT.md for each glossary file the in-flow glossary calls changed — an unchanged file is skipped. Then emit the stage-handoff block per ../_shared/handoff.md — What I did (incl. the terms already reconciled into CONTEXT.md by step 6's in-flow glossary calls — the user learns here that the glossary changed, not later) + Review (tightened spec.md, + CONTEXT.md when terms were added) + Run next — resolve the next stage per .route (Routes in ../_shared/size-matrix.md): forward /sdd:glossary <slug> ↳ or the next backbone stage to skip the glossary hop — that stage is /sdd:ux-flows <slug>, unless ux-flows' N/A condition holds (no human-facing UI — every §4 actor a system/service, or the repo has no UI at all, per the size-matrix fast lane), in which case it's /sdd:design <slug> (on quick — terms were already reconciled in-flow, so auto-resolve straight to that backbone stage unless unglossed terms remain; on full — keep both options, no auto-resolve).

Definition of Done

  • Every ambiguity from the self-sweep + the subagent is Resolved (spec tightened in its native section) or Deferred (a §8 row with both owner AND due) — zero dangling.
  • Resolve edits preserve specify's contracts: §5 AC carry no HTTP/status/error-code/SQL tokens, §6 NFR rows carry a numeric target + measurement (no adjectives), §4 roles match the CONTEXT glossary.
  • The devil's-advocate subagent actually ran (clean context, Read the spec itself) — not skipped, not paraphrased into the main thread.
  • updated_at reflects today; edits-log kept; each resolution written to spec.md as it landed; after the self-check, spec.md and any changed CONTEXT.md committed one commit each (SHAs in the handoff).
  • The devil's-advocate sweep + the zero-dangling resolution rule are this skill's structural self-check (../_shared/self-check.md); its result is reported in the handoff.

Anti-patterns

  • Skipping the subagent and sweeping only in-thread. The clean-context fork-finder is the core mechanic — the self-sweep is shaped by the conversation that wrote the spec and misses its own blind spots.
  • Resolving an ambiguity unilaterally (no AskUserQuestion). clarify proposes; the author decides — the same user-in-the-loop contract as every SDD stage.
  • Defer without owner+due — a §8 row missing either is not a real defer; re-ask once, else it stays unresolved.
  • Re-running the coherence critic here. That F1–F6 cross-section drift check belongs to specify/design; clarify's subagent hunts ambiguity (build-divergence), a different target.
  • Leaking implementation into a Resolve edit — tightening a §5 AC by adding a status code / endpoint / SQL detail. Stay business-observable; the technical mapping lives in api / data-model.
  • Inventing answers to fill findings. A genuinely open point is deferred with an owner, not guessed — better an honest §8 row than a fabricated AC.
  • Authoring new scope. clarify sharpens what the spec already says; a brand-new requirement goes back through specify, not in under cover of a "clarification".

References & template

  • ./references/ambiguity-checks.md — the eight ambiguity classes (how to spot / how to resolve each) + the clean-context devil's-advocate subagent prompt body.
  • ../_shared/ask-style.md — phrasing for the resolve/defer/false-positive question.
  • ../_shared/critic.md — clean-context dispatch discipline reused by step 3 (Reads upstream itself, cited findings, NO_* sentinel on empty).
  • ../_shared/interview-depth.md — the easy/medium/hard dial set in step 1 (sweep aggressiveness + per-finding question volume).

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.