AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Speckit Clarify

skill-merllinsbeard-merlin-skills-speckit-clarify · by merllinsbeard

Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.

No reviews yet
0 installs
3 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-merllinsbeard-merlin-skills-speckit-clarify

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Speckit Clarify? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Pre-Execution Checks

Check for extension hooks (before clarification):

  • Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root.
  • If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.before_clarify key
  • If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
  • Filter out hooks where enabled is explicitly false. Treat hooks without an enabled field as enabled by default.
  • For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook condition expressions:
  • If the hook has no condition field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable
  • If the hook defines a non-empty condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
  • When constructing slash commands from hook command names, replace dots (.) with hyphens (-). For example, speckit.git.commit/speckit-git-commit.
  • For each executable hook, output the following based on its optional flag:
  • Optional hook (optional: true):

``` ## Extension Hooks

Optional Pre-Hook: {extension} Command: /{command} Description: {description}

Prompt: {prompt} To execute: /{command} ```

  • Mandatory hook (optional: false):

``` ## Extension Hooks

Automatic Pre-Hook: {extension} Executing: /{command} EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command}

Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Outline. ```

  • If no hooks are registered or .specify/extensions.yml does not exist, skip silently

Outline

Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.

Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking /speckit-plan. If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases.

Execution steps:

  1. Run .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only from repo root once (combined --json --paths-only mode / -Json -PathsOnly). Parse minimal JSON payload fields:
  • FEATURE_DIR
  • FEATURE_SPEC
  • (Optionally capture IMPL_PLAN, TASKS for future chained flows.)
  • If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run /speckit-specify or verify feature branch environment.
  • For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
  1. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).

Functional Scope & Behavior:

  • Core user goals & success criteria
  • Explicit out-of-scope declarations
  • User roles / personas differentiation

Domain & Data Model:

  • Entities, attributes, relationships
  • Identity & uniqueness rules
  • Lifecycle/state transitions
  • Data volume / scale assumptions

Interaction & UX Flow:

  • Critical user journeys / sequences
  • Error/empty/loading states
  • Accessibility or localization notes

Non-Functional Quality Attributes:

  • Performance (latency, throughput targets)
  • Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits)
  • Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)
  • Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)
  • Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions)
  • Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any)

Integration & External Dependencies:

  • External services/APIs and failure modes
  • Data import/export formats
  • Protocol/versioning assumptions

Edge Cases & Failure Handling:

  • Negative scenarios
  • Rate limiting / throttling
  • Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits)

Constraints & Tradeoffs:

  • Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting)
  • Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives

Terminology & Consistency:

  • Canonical glossary terms
  • Avoided synonyms / deprecated terms

Completion Signals:

  • Acceptance criteria testability
  • Measurable Definition of Done style indicators

Misc / Placeholders:

  • TODO markers / unresolved decisions
  • Ambiguous adjectives ("robust", "intuitive") lacking quantification

For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless:

  • Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy
  • Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally)
  1. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:
  • Maximum of 5 total questions across the whole session.
  • Each question must be answerable with EITHER:
  • A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR
  • A one-word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in `
  • Then render all options as a Markdown table:

| Option | Description | |--------|-------------| | A | | | B | | | C | (add D/E as needed up to 5) | | Short | Provide a different short answer ( - `

  • Then output: Format: Short answer ( → A: .
  • Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):
  • Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.
  • User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.
  • Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.
  • Non-functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Success Criteria > Measurable Outcomes (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).
  • Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).
  • Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding (formerly referred to as "X") once.
  • If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.
  • Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).
  • Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.
  • Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift).
  1. Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass):
  • Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet per accepted answer (no duplicates).
  • Total asked (accepted) questions ≤ 5.
  • Updated sections contain no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve.
  • No contradictory earlier statement remains (scan for now-invalid alternative choices removed).
  • Markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings: ## Clarifications, ### Session YYYY-MM-DD.
  • Terminology consistency: same canonical term used across all updated sections.
  1. Write the updated spec back to FEATURE_SPEC.
  1. Report completion (after questioning loop ends or early termination):
  • Number of questions asked & answered.
  • Path to updated spec.
  • Sections touched (list names).
  • Coverage summary table listing each taxonomy category with Status: Resolved (was Partial/Missing and addressed), Deferred (exceeds question quota or better suited for planning), Clear (already sufficient), Outstanding (still Partial/Missing but low impact).
  • If any Outstanding or Deferred remain, recommend whether to proceed to /speckit-plan or run /speckit-clarify again later post-plan.
  • Suggested next command.

Behavior rules:

  • If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: "No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification." and suggest proceeding.
  • If spec file missing, instruct user to run /speckit-specify first (do not create a new spec here).
  • Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).
  • Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.
  • Respect user early termination signals ("stop", "done", "proceed").
  • If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.
  • If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.

Context for prioritization: $ARGUMENTS

Post-Execution Checks

Check for extension hooks (after clarification): Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root.

  • If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.after_clarify key
  • If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
  • Filter out hooks where enabled is explicitly false. Treat hooks without an enabled field as enabled by default.
  • For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook condition expressions:
  • If the hook has no condition field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable
  • If the hook defines a non-empty condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
  • When constructing slash commands from hook command names, replace dots (.) with hyphens (-). For example, speckit.git.commit/speckit-git-commit.
  • For each executable hook, output the following based on its optional flag:
  • Optional hook (optional: true):

``` ## Extension Hooks

Optional Hook: {extension} Command: /{command} Description: {description}

Prompt: {prompt} To execute: /{command} ```

  • Mandatory hook (optional: false):

``` ## Extension Hooks

Automatic Hook: {extension} Executing: /{command} EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} ```

  • If no hooks are registered or .specify/extensions.yml does not exist, skip silently

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.