CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ask-questions-if-underspecified

Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.

56

Quality

64%

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-claude/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

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is a well-structured, actionable instruction skill with a clear multi-step workflow and concrete question templates; it is efficient and organized, with only minor verbosity and no explicit retry/validation loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with numbered steps and templates and no padding about concepts Claude already knows, but the verbose bullet on bolding recommended choices and the 7-item 'make questions easy to answer' list could be trimmed, fitting the efficient-with-minor-over-explanation anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable guidance — numbered 1-5 question caps, multiple-choice templates, a full reply-format code block, and example question strings — with only minor gaps, matching the mostly-executable anchor; it stops short of 5 because guidance is instructional rather than copy-paste code covering all common cases.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow (decide underspecified, ask must-have questions, pause before acting, confirm and proceed) is clearly sequenced with a pause-checkpoint and confirmation loop, but lacks an explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop, matching the clear-sequence-most-checkpoints anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The single self-contained file is well-organized with clear headers (When to Use / NOT to Use, Goal, Workflow, templates, Anti-patterns) and no nested references, but at ~80 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception that would allow a 5 on structure alone, placing it at good-structure with minor gaps.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The description correctly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, but the 'when' trigger ('serious doubts arise') is vague and the action is a single generic verb, leaving it mid-range on specificity and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Replace 'serious doubts arise' with concrete natural triggers users would say, e.g. 'Use when a request is ambiguous, underspecified, or admits multiple plausible interpretations.'

Add 1-2 more concrete actions to raise specificity, e.g. 'Ask the minimum set of clarifying questions and confirm assumptions before implementing.'

Include common synonyms/file-agnostic phrasing ('unclear requirements', 'ambiguous request') to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase 'Clarify requirements before implementing' names the domain but offers only a single, generic action (clarify), matching the anchor where actions are minimal rather than the 1-2 concrete actions expected at 3.

2 / 5

Completeness

It states both a clear 'what' ('Clarify requirements before implementing') and a 'when' ('Use when serious doubts arise'), but the trigger could be more explicit and concrete, matching the both-present-but-could-be-sharper anchor rather than the fully explicit 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'requirements' and 'serious doubts arise' are relevant keywords, but common natural variations a user would actually say ('ambiguous', 'unclear', 'ask questions') are missing, fitting the some-relevant-keywords anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The clarification-before-implementing niche is somewhat specific, but 'serious doubts arise' is broad enough to overlap with many meta/behavioral skills, fitting the somewhat-specific-but-still-overlap anchor.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

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.