Skill v1.0.2

version: "1.0.2" name: smith-clarify description: Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec. handoffs:

• label: Build Technical Plan

agent: smith-plan prompt: Create a plan for the spec. I am building with...

Workflow requirement (Smith 20+): This skill must be invoked from inside an active top-level workflow (/smith-new, /smith-bugfix, /smith-debug, /smith-build). The workflow-gate hook will block standalone invocation. To use this skill standalone, start a top-level workflow first.

Vault Logging

Throughout this action, log significant events to the vault session log. Read the session log path from .smith/vault/.current-session. If the file is missing or the vault is not initialized, skip all logging silently.

Timestamps are UTC. HH:MM:SS comes from date -u +%H:%M:%S — never a local clock, never a time from memory. The append already runs through a shell, so read the clock in that same command (TS=$(date -u +%H:%M:%S)) and spend no extra tool call. Substitute the resulting value: an unexpanded $(...) reaching the log is a known regression and will not parse. Every hook-written stamp in this log is date -u, so a local-clock entry lands hours away from its neighbours and skews the workflow window hooks/workflow_summary_lib.py derives from them.

Append entries using this format:

### [HH:MM:SS] /smith-clarify <event>
 
**User Request:**
> <verbatim user message that triggered this action>
 
**Synthesized Input:** <brief summary>
**Outcome:** <what happened>
**Artifacts:** <files modified>
**Systems affected:** <system IDs>

Log at these points:

1. On invocation — which spec is being clarified (feature name and path)
2. After questions asked — number of questions, brief topic summary for each
3. After answers received — decision summary for each answered question (topic + chosen option)
4. After spec updates — which sections of the spec were updated based on answers

User Input

$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 /smith-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 /smith-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").

Questions file location: Store the questions file inside the feature spec folder at FEATURE_DIR/questions.md (NOT in a separate specs/questions/ directory). The questions are part of the feature's decision record and should travel with the feature spec. If FEATURE_DIR points to a .specify/systems/<system>/features/<feature>/ path, use that directly. If clarify is run multiple times, append new questions to the existing file with a ### Session YYYY-MM-DD timestamp header rather than overwriting.

1.5. Check for existing unanswered questions. After resolving FEATURE_DIR, check if FEATURE_DIR/questions.md exists. If it does, scan for unanswered questions — lines matching **Answer**: ___ or **Answer:** followed by only whitespace/underscore.

If unanswered questions exist: Skip the spec ambiguity scan (steps 2-3) and enter the Interactive Answer Collection flow below. This handles the case where /smith-new generated a questions.md during the planning phase and the user wants to answer them conversationally.

If no questions.md exists, or all questions are already answered: Proceed with the normal spec ambiguity scan (steps 2-4).

### Interactive Answer Collection (for existing questions.md)

When a questions.md file exists with unanswered questions, walk through each one interactively:

A. Parse questions.md — extract all question blocks. Each block has: question number, topic, context, question text, options table, recommended answer, and current answer status.

B. Invoke `smith-question` and present each unanswered question one at a time.

Invoke the smith-question skill — it is the canonical contract for the presentation format (Context → Options with pros/cons → Recommended + reasoning) and the one-at-a-time / wait-for-reply pacing. Follow that contract; do NOT restate the format here, and do NOT use the interactive AskUserQuestion popup.

C. Process the user's response per smith-question's response grammar (yes/recommended/rec → recommended answer; an option letter → that option's description; skip → **Answer:** SKIPPED — needs follow-up; anything else → custom answer verbatim).

D. After each answer, immediately:

1. Update questions.md — replace the **Answer**: ___ line for that question with **Answer:** [chosen answer]
2. Confirm to the user: Saved: Q[N] → [brief answer summary]. ([remaining] questions remaining)
3. Present the next unanswered question

E. If the session is interrupted before all questions are answered, the questions.md file reflects the current state — answered questions have their answers filled in, unanswered questions still show **Answer**: ___. The user can resume later by running /smith-clarify again (it will pick up where they left off).

F. After all questions are answered (or the user says "done"):

1. Update questions.md header — change **Status**: AWAITING ANSWERS to **Status**: ANSWERED (or PARTIALLY ANSWERED if any were skipped)
2. Display a summary of all answers:

``` ## Answers Summary

... ```

1. Ask: "Would you like to change any answers before proceeding? Reply with a question number to revise, or 'looks good' to continue."
2. If the user wants to change an answer, re-present that question and collect a new answer. Update questions.md.
3. Once confirmed, update spec.md with the decisions from the answered questions:

• For each non-skipped answer, identify the relevant section of spec.md and incorporate the decision
• Add or update a ## Implementation Decisions section in the spec if answers affect implementation approach
• Save spec.md

1. Suggest next step: "Questions answered and spec updated. Next: /smith-plan to generate the implementation plan."

Log all answers to the vault session log per the Vault Logging section above.

After completing the Interactive Answer Collection, skip to step 8 (Report completion).

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 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.

1. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):

• Invoke the smith-question skill for the canonical presentation contract

and response grammar; the multiple-choice format below follows it. Never use the interactive AskUserQuestion popup — questions are presented as markdown. (The short-answer style and the ≤5-word constraint below are clarify-specific additions on top of that contract; spec-ambiguity answers integrate into spec.md rather than a questions.md.)

• 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:

• 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.

1. 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).

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 /smith-plan or run /smith-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 /smith-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