Loading...
Loading...
Found 38 Skills
This skill should be used when the user's request or requirement is ambiguous and needs iterative questioning to become actionable. Trigger on "clarify requirements", "refine requirements", "요구사항 명확히", "요구사항 정리", "뭘 원하는 건지", "make this clearer", "spec this out", "scope this", "/clarify". Turns vague inputs into concrete specs. For strategy blind spots use unknown; for content-vs-form reframing use metamedium.
Optional Stage 0 of the feature workflow — clarify vague ideas through dialogue until they are ready to enter the design phase. The role of AI is a thinking partner: dig out the real problem the user wants to solve (instead of sticking to the first solution they blurt out), actively evaluate the solution when the user brings it up, and propose better alternatives if necessary. After the discussion, output {slug}-brainstorm.md to document the results. Trigger scenarios: The user says "I have an unclear idea", "Let's brainstorm first", "The feature direction is still undecided", or the user brings a specific solution but wants to hear other ideas first. Skip this stage and proceed directly to design if the idea is already clear and the user does not want to discuss the solution further. This stage also does not handle bugs and refactoring.
Unified requirement clarification to prevent downstream implementation churn by resolving ambiguity early. Default: research-first with autonomous decision-making and persistent questioning. --light: direct iterative Q&A. Triggers: "cwf:clarify", "clarify this", "refine requirements"
Use when working on the spec branch of sdlc-dev, when requirements are ambiguous, scope is unstable, constraints are unclear, and issues such as context drift, unfounded assumptions, multiple questions asked at once, or requests to skip the FEATURE_DIR/raw gate occur.
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the codebase or domain is unfamiliar, the user will "know it when they see it", a reference implementation must be understood before porting, mid-build deviations from the plan need capturing, or a finished change needs buy-in or verified understanding before merge. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) — walk the quadrants to burn off fog before slicing, and feed the finished map into the spec.
Front door of the SDD flow. When the user asks for a feature or bug fix ("implementa…", "agrega…", "arregla…", "add…", "build…", "fix…"), FIRST scan the request + codebase context for load-bearing ambiguity and ask a few targeted clarifying questions (selectable options, recommended first) BEFORE writing any spec or code — then hand a well-formed goal to /opsx:propose (small) or the sdd-feature-flow workflow (large). Skip the questions when the request is already unambiguous. Modeled on GitHub Spec-Kit's /clarify.
Phase 2.5 of disciplined development. Deep specification interview after design. Reads specifications, conducts thorough user interviews about implementation details, edge cases, and tradeoffs using AskUserQuestionTool. Appends refined findings to the design document. Uses convergence-based completion.
Guidance for asking clarifying questions when user requests are ambiguous, have multiple valid approaches, or require critical decisions. Use when implementation choices exist that could significantly affect outcomes.
Interview user to clarify any topic - exploring codebase, investigating issues, planning features, understanding requirements, or drilling into plans. Socratic questioning to uncover details.
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
Socratic discovery and design exploration before planning. Activates when starting non-trivial work — asks clarifying questions, explores alternatives and tradeoffs, produces a design document for approval. Pulls context from Linear issue description, linked docs, and existing CLAUDE.md learnings. Simple bugs and fixes skip this automatically.
Socratic thinking partner that refines half-baked ideas into clear product or technical specifications through iterative questioning. Use when you have a vague concept, feature idea, or problem statement and need structured clarification before building.