CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ask-questions-if-underspecified

Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.

45

Quality

47%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/ask-questions-if-underspecified/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is ask-questions-if-underspecified in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-crafted instructional skill with a clear, sequenced workflow and highly actionable question templates. Its main strengths are the concrete examples of how to format questions for users and the explicit pause-before-acting checkpoint. Minor weaknesses include some redundancy between sections and slightly verbose coverage for what is fundamentally a communication/process skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is mostly efficient and well-structured, but includes some sections that could be tightened. The 'When NOT to Use' section partially repeats information from the anti-patterns, and the question templates section is somewhat lengthy. However, it generally respects Claude's intelligence and doesn't over-explain basic concepts.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides highly concrete, copy-paste-ready question templates with specific formatting examples (numbered questions with lettered options, the 'defaults' fast-path, compact reply format like '1a 2a'). The workflow steps are specific and instructive rather than vague.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: decide if underspecified → ask questions → pause before acting → confirm then proceed. The pause step includes clear constraints on what is/isn't allowed, and there's an explicit feedback loop for when users want to proceed without answers (state assumptions → get confirmation).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, but everything is inline in a single file. For a skill of this length (~80 lines of content), the question templates section could potentially be separated. However, the structure is logical and scannable with good use of headers and lists.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

17%Scale 1-3

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description is too vague and generic to be useful for skill selection. It lacks concrete actions, specific domain context, and natural trigger terms. The 'when' clause ('serious doubts arise') is subjective and unhelpful for distinguishing this skill from others.

Suggestions

Specify the domain and concrete actions, e.g., 'Asks clarifying questions about ambiguous software requirements, user stories, or feature requests before writing code.'

Replace the vague 'when serious doubts arise' with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user's request is ambiguous, underspecified, or could be interpreted multiple ways, such as unclear acceptance criteria or missing edge case definitions.'

Add natural trigger terms users might use, such as 'unclear spec', 'ambiguous request', 'what do you mean', 'need more details', or 'underspecified requirements'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses vague language like 'clarify requirements' and 'implementing' without specifying what kind of requirements, what domain, or what concrete actions are taken. No specific capabilities are listed.

1 / 3

Completeness

It has a weak 'what' (clarify requirements before implementing) and a weak 'when' ('when serious doubts arise'), but the 'when' clause is vague and subjective rather than providing explicit, actionable triggers.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The terms 'requirements', 'implementing', and 'serious doubts' are overly generic and not natural keywords a user would say. Users wouldn't typically phrase requests using these terms to trigger this skill.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

This description is extremely generic and could apply to virtually any skill involving planning, design, or development. 'Clarify requirements' and 'serious doubts' provide no distinct niche or domain specificity.

1 / 3

Total

5

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.