clarity

Establish clarity before starting work. Use when beginning any significant task, when input is vague or stream-of-consciousness, or when requirements seem unclear. Handles messy voice input efficiently. This is the first system in the 5-system framework.

1.26x

Quality

47%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

85%

1.26x

Average score across 6 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/data/1-clarity/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%

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

This skill has a well-designed tiered workflow that appropriately scales effort to input clarity, and the messy input example is particularly effective. However, the Full Clarity Protocol section is somewhat verbose with questions Claude would naturally ask, and the content could benefit from being split across files to improve progressive disclosure. The actionability is moderate—good examples exist for the simple case but the complex protocol lacks concrete worked examples.

Suggestions

Add a concrete worked example for the Full Clarity Protocol (Steps 1-4) showing a complex task going through all steps, similar to the messy input example.

Trim the Full Clarity Protocol questions to only non-obvious ones—Claude already knows to ask 'Why does this matter?' and 'What happens if we don't do this?'

Move the active-context.md output template to a separate referenced file (e.g., TEMPLATES.md) to keep the main skill leaner and improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill has some efficient sections (the Messy Input Protocol is well-structured and lean), but the Full Clarity Protocol includes many questions Claude would naturally know to ask. The 'Step 2: WHY' section with questions like 'Why does this matter?' and 'What happens if we don't do this?' are things Claude inherently understands. The output template is lengthy but arguably necessary for standardization.	2 / 3
Actionability	The example for messy input is concrete and helpful, and the output template for active-context.md is copy-paste ready. However, the Full Clarity Protocol steps are more of a checklist of questions to ask rather than executable guidance—they describe what to do abstractly rather than showing concrete examples of how to apply each step. No executable code is needed here, but more worked examples would strengthen actionability.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The workflow is clearly sequenced with a tiered approach: clear requests skip the protocol, slightly unclear get a one-line confirm, very unclear get the full extract+confirm flow. The Full Clarity Protocol has explicit steps (1-4) with a clear output requirement and transition criteria to other systems. The efficiency rules serve as decision checkpoints.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is reasonably well-structured with the Messy Input Protocol as a quick-start and the Full Clarity Protocol for complex work. However, the full protocol and output template could be split into separate referenced files to keep the main SKILL.md leaner. References to other systems (Identity, Priority, Execution, Reset) and SOURCE_OF_TRUTH.md are mentioned but no bundle files exist to support them.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

32%

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 fails to specify what concrete actions this skill performs, relying on abstract language like 'establish clarity.' While it provides some trigger conditions via the 'Use when' clause, the lack of specific capabilities and the overly broad scope ('any significant task') make it difficult to distinguish from other skills and to know what it actually does.

Suggestions

Replace 'establish clarity' with specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Parses vague or messy user input, asks targeted clarifying questions, and produces a structured requirements summary before work begins.'

Narrow the scope to reduce conflict risk—instead of 'any significant task,' specify the types of tasks or contexts where this skill is most valuable, e.g., 'Use when user requests are ambiguous, incomplete, or dictated via voice with unclear structure.'

Remove internal framework references ('5-system framework') which don't aid skill selection, and instead use that space for additional natural trigger terms like 'ambiguous,' 'confusing,' 'what do you mean,' or 'clarify requirements.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague language like 'establish clarity' and 'beginning any significant task' without listing concrete actions. It doesn't specify what the skill actually does—no mention of asking clarifying questions, parsing requirements, creating structured summaries, or any other tangible action.	1 / 3
Completeness	It has a 'when' clause ('Use when beginning any significant task, when input is vague...'), but the 'what' is extremely weak—'establish clarity' is abstract and doesn't explain what concrete actions the skill performs. The 'what' portion fails to describe specific capabilities.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant trigger terms like 'vague,' 'unclear,' 'voice input,' and 'requirements,' which users might naturally mention. However, it lacks common variations like 'ambiguous,' 'confusing request,' 'what do you mean,' or 'clarify.' The phrase 'stream-of-consciousness' is somewhat niche.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is very generic—'beginning any significant task' and 'establish clarity' could overlap with virtually any planning, requirements gathering, or task management skill. The reference to a '5-system framework' is internal jargon that doesn't help distinguish it from other skills in a practical selection context.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Commit: c3c7445

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.