speckit-clarify

name: speckit-clarify

description: Structured question generation to de-risk ambiguous areas before implementation planning.

compatibility: Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify/ directory

metadata:

author: github-spec-kit

source: templates/commands/clarify.md

Speckit Clarify Skill

User Provided Context

{{user_provided_context}}

You MUST consider the User Provided Context before proceeding (if not empty).

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").

2. 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)

3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:

   • Maximum of 10 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 <=5 words").

   • Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.

   • Ensure category coverage balance: attempt to cover the highest impact unresolved categories first; avoid asking two low-impact questions when a single high-impact area (e.g., security posture) is unresolved.

   • Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).

   • Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.

   • If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.

4. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):

   • Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.

   • For multiple‑choice questions:

     • Analyze all options and determine the most suitable option based on:

       • Best practices for the project type

       • Common patterns in similar implementations

       • Risk reduction (security, performance, maintainability)

       • Alignment with any explicit project goals or constraints visible in the spec

     • Present your recommended option prominently at the top with clear reasoning (1-2 sentences explaining why this is the best choice).

     • Format as: **Recommended:** Option [X] - <reasoning>

     • 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 (<=5 words) (Include only if free-form alternative is appropriate) |

     • After the table, add: You can reply with the option letter (e.g., "A"), accept the recommendation by saying "yes" or "recommended", or provide your own short answer.

   • For short‑answer style (no meaningful discrete options):

     • Provide your suggested answer based on best practices and context.

     • Format as: **Suggested:** <your proposed answer> - <brief reasoning>

     • Then output: Format: Short answer (<=5 words). You can accept the suggestion by saying "yes" or "suggested", or provide your own answer.

   • After the user answers:

     • If the user replies with "yes", "recommended", or "suggested", use your previously stated recommendation/suggestion as the answer.

     • Otherwise, validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint.

     • If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).

     • Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.

   • Stop asking further questions when:

     • All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR

     • User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR

     • You reach 5 asked questions.

   • Never reveal future queued questions in advance.

   • If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.

5. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):

   • Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.

   • For the first integrated answer in this session:

     • Ensure a ## Clarifications section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing).

     • Under it, create (if not present) a ### Session YYYY-MM-DD subheading for today.

   • Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: - Q: <question> → A: <final answer>.

   • 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 Non-Functional / Quality Attributes section (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).

6. 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.

7. Write the updated spec back to FEATURE_SPEC.

8. 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 skill.

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: {{user_provided_context}}