agentleFS
iamvicliuiamvicliu/AgentHub/.agents/skills/clarify/SKILL.md

clarify

Skill80 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Improve unclear UX copy, error messages, microcopy, labels, and instructions to make interfaces easier to understand. Use when the user mentions confusing text, unclear labels, bad error messages, hard-to-follow instructions, or wanting better UX writing.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

21 rules. 0 are common, 21 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 73 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 21

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Create a strategy for clearer communication:

    line 39
  2. Distinctive:

    Don't blame the user

    line 64
  3. Distinctive:

    Use clear, specific labels (not generic placeholders)

    line 78
  4. Distinctive:

    Put instructions before the field, not after

    line 81
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep required field indicators clear

    line 82
  6. Distinctive:

    Use active voice (verb + noun)

    line 92
  7. Distinctive:

    Add value (don't just repeat the label)

    line 103
  8. Distinctive:

    Keep it brief but complete

    line 105
  9. Distinctive:

    Use clear button labels ("Delete project" not "Yes")

    line 152
  10. Distinctive:

    Don't overuse confirmations (only for risky actions)

    line 153
  11. Distinctive:

    Use language users understand (not internal jargon)

    line 163
  12. Distinctive:

    Consider information scent (breadcrumbs, current location)

    line 165
  13. Distinctive:

    Every piece of copy should follow these rules:

    line 169
  14. Distinctive:

    Be consistent: Use same terms throughout (don't vary for variety)

    line 176
  15. Distinctive:

    Use jargon without explanation

    line 180
  16. Distinctive:

    Use passive voice unnecessarily

    line 183
  17. Distinctive:

    Write overly long explanations (be concise)

    line 184
  18. Distinctive:

    Use humor for errors (be empathetic instead)

    line 185
  19. Distinctive:

    Use placeholders as the only labels (they disappear when users type)

    line 189
  20. Distinctive:

    Test that copy improvements work:

    line 193
  21. Distinctive:

    Actionability: Do users know what to do next?

    line 196

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 73 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

Identify and improve unclear, confusing, or poorly written interface text to make the product easier to understand and use.

MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first. Additionally gather: audience technical level and users' mental state in context.


Assess Current Copy

Identify what makes the text unclear or ineffective:

  1. Find clarity problems:
    • Jargon: Technical terms users won't understand
    • Ambiguity: Multiple interpretations possible
    • Passive voice: "Your file has been uploaded" vs "We uploaded your file"
    • Length: Too wordy or too terse
    • Assumptions: Assuming user knowledge they don't have
    • Missing context: Users don't know what to do or why
    • Tone mismatch: Too formal, too casual, or inappropriate for situation
  2. Understand the context:
    • Who's the audience? (Technical? General? First-time users?)
    • What's the user's mental state? (Stressed during error? Confident during success?)
    • What's the action? (What do we want users to do?)
    • What's the constraint? (Character limits? Space limitations?)

CRITICAL: Clear copy helps users succeed. Unclear copy creates frustration, errors, and support tickets.

Plan Copy Improvements

Create a strategy for clearer communication:

  • Primary message: What's the ONE thing users need to know?
  • Action needed: What should users do next (if anything)?
  • Tone: How should this feel? (Helpful? Apologetic? Encouraging?)
  • Constraints: Length limits, brand voice, localization considerations

IMPORTANT: Good UX writing is invisible. Users should understand immediately without noticing the words.

Improve Copy Systematically

Refine text across these common areas:

Error Messages

Bad: "Error 403: Forbidden" Good: "You don't have permission to view this page. Contact your admin for access."

Bad: "Invalid input" Good: "Email addresses need an @ symbol. Try: name@example.com"

Principles:

  • Explain what went wrong in plain language
  • Suggest how to fix it
  • Don't blame the user
  • Include examples when helpful
  • Link to help/support if applicable

Form Labels & Instructions

Bad: "DOB (MM/DD/YYYY)" Good: "Date of birth" (with placeholder showing format)

Bad: "Enter value here" Good: "Your email address" or "Company name"

Principles:

  • Use clear, specific labels (not generic placeholders)
  • Show format expectations with examples
  • Explain why you're asking (when not obvious)
  • Put instructions before the field, not after
  • Keep required field indicators clear

Button & CTA Text

Bad: "Click here" | "Submit" | "OK" Good: "Create account" | "Save changes" | "Got it, thanks"

Principles:

  • Describe the action specifically
  • Use active voice (verb + noun)
  • Match user's mental model
  • Be specific ("Save" is better than "OK")

Help Text & Tooltips

Bad: "This is the username field" Good: "Choose a username. You can change this later in Settings."

Principles:

  • Add value (don't just repeat the label)
  • Answer the implicit question ("What is this?" or "Why do you need this?")
  • Keep it brief but complete
  • Link to detailed docs if needed

Empty States

Bad: "No items" Good: "No projects yet. Create your first project to get started."

Principles:

  • Explain why it's empty (if not obvious)
  • Show next action clearly
  • Make it welcoming, not dead-end

Success Messages

Bad: "Success" Good: "Settings saved! Your changes will take effect immediately."

Principles:

  • Confirm what happened
  • Explain what happens next (if relevant)
  • Be brief but complete
  • Match the user's emotional moment (celebrate big wins)

Loading States

Bad: "Loading..." (for 30+ seconds) Good: "Analyzing your data... this usually takes 30-60 seconds"

Principles:

  • Set expectations (how long?)
  • Explain what's happening (when it's not obvious)
  • Show progress when possible
  • Offer escape hatch if appropriate ("Cancel")

Confirmation Dialogs

Bad: "Are you sure?" Good: "Delete 'Project Alpha'? This can't be undone."

Principles:

  • State the specific action
  • Explain consequences (especially for destructive actions)
  • Use clear button labels ("Delete project" not "Yes")
  • Don't overuse confirmations (only for risky actions)

Navigation & Wayfinding

Bad: Generic labels like "Items" | "Things" | "Stuff" Good: Specific labels like "Your projects" | "Team members" | "Settings"

Principles:

  • Be specific and descriptive
  • Use language users understand (not internal jargon)
  • Make hierarchy clear
  • Consider information scent (breadcrumbs, current location)

Apply Clarity Principles

Every piece of copy should follow these rules:

  1. Be specific: "Enter email" not "Enter value"
  2. Be concise: Cut unnecessary words (but don't sacrifice clarity)
  3. Be active: "Save changes" not "Changes will be saved"
  4. Be human: "Oops, something went wrong" not "System error encountered"
  5. Be helpful: Tell users what to do, not just what happened
  6. Be consistent: Use same terms throughout (don't vary for variety)

NEVER:

  • Use jargon without explanation
  • Blame users ("You made an error" → "This field is required")
  • Be vague ("Something went wrong" without explanation)
  • Use passive voice unnecessarily
  • Write overly long explanations (be concise)
  • Use humor for errors (be empathetic instead)
  • Assume technical knowledge
  • Vary terminology (pick one term and stick with it)
  • Repeat information (headers restating intros, redundant explanations)
  • Use placeholders as the only labels (they disappear when users type)

Verify Improvements

Test that copy improvements work:

  • Comprehension: Can users understand without context?
  • Actionability: Do users know what to do next?
  • Brevity: Is it as short as possible while remaining clear?
  • Consistency: Does it match terminology elsewhere?
  • Tone: Is it appropriate for the situation?

Remember: You're a clarity expert with excellent communication skills. Write like you're explaining to a smart friend who's unfamiliar with the product. Be clear, be helpful, be human.

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions79 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 2

    1. spool-lab/spool★ 592100% same
    2. paperboytm/spool★ 590100% same

    Edited · 36

    1. talesofai/cohub★ 583100% same
    2. nexmoe/DayBee★ 42497% same
    3. nexmoe/eve★ 42497% same
    4. Southclaws/storyden★ 34697% same
    5. 10xChengTu/Mux0★ 33798% same
    6. theexperiencecompany/gaia★ 32498% same
    7. AkaraChen/aghub★ 271100% same
    8. zacharyfmarion/openscad-studio★ 23896% same
    9. jagrat7/linux-wallpaper-engine★ 22299% same
    10. owshq-mec/semana-ai-data-engineer★ 12298% same

    26 more not listed

    Wrote their own version · 41

    1. ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm★ 517same name
    2. zaxbysauce/opencode-swarm★ 517same name
    3. educlopez/ui-craft★ 398same name
    4. ryanthedev/code-foundations★ 381same name
    5. mag123c/toktrack★ 196same name
    6. genkovich/sdd★ 187same name
    7. team-attention/hoyeon★ 173same name
    8. instructa/agent-skills★ 139same name
    9. ArvorCo/Relentless★ 98same name
    10. glowingkitty/OpenMates★ 53same name

    31 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.

  • Used alongsideProjects with it also use quieter, arrange and 9 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

    • +7 more from HK-hub
  • In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.

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.