Requirement clarification
A curated collection of reusable AI Agent Skills for standardized workflows, best practices, and domain expertise.
npx -y skills add Dqz00116/skill-lib --skill requirement-clarificationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 22 stars22 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when receiving ambiguous instructions, preparing for state-changing operations, or needing explicit user confirmation
SKILL.md
8.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Requirement Clarification
Overview
Intercept and clarify ambiguous user instructions before execution.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- User instruction contains missing critical information
- References are vague ("that", "this", "there" without context)
- Statement is non-affirmative (questions, conditionals, suggestions)
- Scope or quality criteria are unclear
- High-risk operations (Git, file changes, config updates) are requested
Trigger Threshold: Score >= 30 or any mandatory trigger condition
Prerequisites
- Understanding of the user's current context
- Knowledge of state-changing vs read-only operations
- Familiarity with confirmation vocabulary (preparing vs approving)
Workflow
Step 1: Ambiguity Detection
Calculate ambiguity score (0-100):
| Factor | Score |
|---|---|
| Missing critical parameter | +25 each |
| Vague reference | +15 each |
| Non-affirmative statement | +20 |
| Scope ambiguity | +10 |
| Conditional clause | +15 |
| High-risk operation | +25 |
| Non-confirmation word (准备 (Preparing)/考虑 (Considering)/研究 (Studying/Researching)/讨论 (Discussing)) | +20 |
Thresholds:
- 0-29: Proceed directly
- 30-59: Light clarification (1-2 questions)
- 60-89: Deep clarification (structured interview)
- 90+: Reject (too ambiguous)
Step 2: Mandatory Pause Check
Before ANY state-changing action, ask:
"Stop. Does this change state? Yes. Is it confirmed? No. Go confirm."
Triggers mandatory pause:
- Score >= 30
- Git operations (branch, commit, push, merge)
- File creation/deletion/moving
- Configuration changes
- "Preparing" words detected without "approving" context
Step 3: Clarification Strategy
Single Question Focus: Ask ONE critical question at a time.
Provide Sensible Defaults:
Target path?
- A) ./backup/ (backup directory)
- B) ./archive/ (archive directory)
- C) Other: _____
Use Concrete Examples:
Performance target?
Examples:
- "Startup time < 3 seconds"
- "Memory usage < 100MB"
- "QPS > 1000"
Step 4: Build Execution Plan
Standard format:
📋 Task Plan
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🎯 Goal: [Clear description of final state]
Steps:
1. [Step 1 with full parameters]
2. [Step 2 with full parameters]
...
Expected Output:
- [Output 1]
- [Output 2]
Risks:
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]
Estimated Time: [X] minutes
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
✅ Confirmation: Reply "批准计划 (Approve plan)" to proceed
Step 5: Wait for Approval
Valid confirmations:
- 批准 (Approve)
- 确认 (Confirm)
- 同意 (Agree)
- 执行 (Execute)
- 可以 (OK/Yes)
- 行 (OK)
NOT confirmations (require clarification):
- 准备 (Preparing)
- 考虑 (Considering)
- 研究 (Studying/Researching)
- 讨论 (Discussing)
- 看看 (Take a look)
- 想一下 (Think about it)
Step 6: Execute (Within Plan Boundaries)
Once "批准计划 (Approve plan)" received:
- Execute autonomously
- Follow plan exactly
- Report progress for long operations
PAUSE and re-confirm if:
- Need to modify files outside plan scope
- Encounter unexpected errors
- Discover significant plan deviation
Step 7: Post-Execution Report
✅ Task Complete Report
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Completed Steps:
✓ Step 1
✓ Step 2
...
Actual Output:
- [Output 1] - [description]
- [Output 2] - [description]
Deviations from Plan: [None / explanation]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Best Practices
Do's
✅ Ask ONE question at a time for simple gaps ✅ Provide sensible defaults with options ✅ Use concrete examples to illustrate ✅ Acknowledge when clarification is needed ✅ Keep tone collaborative, not interrogative ✅ Respect "你决定 (You decide)" but still require final approval
Don'ts
❌ Ask more than 3 questions in one turn ❌ Proceed with assumptions without confirmation ❌ Treat questions as directives ❌ Ignore conditionals ("if", "when", "maybe") ❌ Pressure user for perfect precision
High-Risk Exceptions
Even with plan approval, require separate confirmation:
git push(pushing to remote)git reset --hard(force reset)rm -rfor permanent deletion- External API calls with costs
- Modifying secrets/critical configs
- Operations affecting external systems
Common Issues
Issue 1: Clarification Loop
Symptom: User provides multiple answers that don't converge.
Solution:
ℹ️ After multiple clarifications, requirements still have uncertainties.
Options:
A) Split task into smaller steps
B) I provide a recommendation for your approval
Choose?
Issue 2: "You Decide" Delegation
Symptom: User says "你决定 (You decide)".
Solution:
📝 Recommended Plan
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Based on common scenarios, I suggest:
[Plan details]
Reply "批准计划 (Approve plan)" to proceed, or tell me specific changes.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Issue 3: "Preparing" vs "Approving" Confusion
Symptom: User uses "准备实施 (Preparing to implement)".
Solution:
ℹ️ Clarification
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
You used "准备" (preparing), which indicates planning phase.
Please confirm:
- A) Continue planning/discussion (no execution)
- B) Approve execution (say "批准实施 (Approve implementation)" or "确认执行 (Confirm execution)")
Current status: Waiting for explicit approval
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Issue 4: User Changes Mind
Symptom: User contradicts previous clarifications.
Solution:
ℹ️ Received new information. Updated plan:
[Revised plan]
Confirm execution of this updated version?
Issue 5: Too Ambiguous (>90 score)
Symptom: Cannot form reliable plan.
Solution:
⚠️ Instruction too ambiguous for reliable plan.
Please rephrase in format:
Format: "对 [specific target] 执行 [specific action],要求 [specific standard/condition]"
Example:
"对 memory/2026-02-11.md 添加今天的 git 操作记录 (Add today's Git operation records), 要求包含完整的命令输出 (require complete command output)"
Decision Tree
Input: User instruction
│
├─ Read-only query? (查看/读取/显示 (View/Read/Display))
│ └─ YES → Skip, proceed directly
│
├─ High-risk operation? (git, file ops, config)
│ └─ YES → Trigger (+25, mandatory pause)
│
├─ Non-confirmation words? (准备 (Preparing)/考虑 (Considering)/研究 (Studying/Researching)/讨论 (Discussing))
│ └─ YES → Trigger (+20)
│
├─ Action without confirmation? ("Do it" / "Go ahead")
│ └─ YES → Trigger (intent ≠ approval)
│
├─ Vague reference? ("this", "that", "it")
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
├─ Question format? (吗? (? - question marker)/?)
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
├─ Conditional? ("if", "when", "maybe")
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
├─ Missing parameters?
│ └─ YES → Trigger
│
└─ Final Check
├─ Score < 30 AND no mandatory triggers?
│ └─ YES → Proceed
└─ Score ≥ 30 OR mandatory trigger?
└─ YES → Trigger skill
See Also
- git-workflow - Safe Git operations
- code-analysis - Structured code understanding
- code-generator - Implementation from design
Version History
-
v1.1 (2026-02-11) - Integration with agent policies
- Added mandatory pause mechanism
- Added habitual violation blacklist
- Added "preparing vs approving" detection
- Aligned with Batch Confirmation Mode
-
v1.0 (2026-02-11) - Initial release
- Ambiguity detection framework
- Clarification strategies
- Plan template
- Edge case handling