Speckit ClarifySAFE

Intelligent Skill routing and workflow orchestration for AI agents — +21.12 pp reward, −29.6% tokens on SkillsBench with DeepSeekV4Flash-VE.

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: speckit-clarify
description: Structured clarification workflow for underspecified requirements. Use
  before planning to resolve ambiguities through coverage-based questioning. Records
  answers in spec clarifications section.
compatibility: Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify/ directory
metadata:
  author: github-spec-kit
  source: templates/commands/clarify.md
---

# Speckit Clarify Skill

## User Input

```text
$ARGUMENTS
```

You **MUST** consider the user input 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/powershell/check-prerequisites.ps1 -Json -PathsOnly` 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 | <Option A description> |
       | B | <Option B description> |
       | C | <Option C description> (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 th

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.