CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

speckit-clarify

Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.

58

Quality

68%

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 ./.claude/skills/speckit-clarify/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%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-sequenced, highly actionable clarification workflow with strong validation checkpoints and clear navigation. Its main weakness is token-efficiency: duplicated hook blocks and repeated constraints inflate length without adding information.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the Pre-Execution and Post-Execution hook blocks into a single parameterized section (e.g., 'Hook handling (before/after)') to cut roughly 60 lines.

State the 5-question limit once in step 3 and reference it elsewhere rather than restating it in steps 4, behavior rules, and validation.

Factor the ambiguity taxonomy (steps 2) into a references/ file and inline only the prioritization rule, reducing the SKILL.md body toward a leaner overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and free of over-explained fundamentals, but the Pre/Post Execution hook blocks are duplicated near-verbatim and the 5-question limit is restated across steps 3, 4, behavior rules, and validation, so it could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-ready guidance: exact script invocation with flags, JSON fields to parse, exact bullet/heading formats, and a prioritization heuristic, with only minor template placeholders left to fill.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 8-step sequence with explicit validation after each write plus a final pass, disambiguation feedback loops, and abort-on-parse-failure handling — well above the destructive/batch cap of 3 since validation is present.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; the body is organized with clear section headers and no nested references, though the duplicated hook blocks could be factored into a small reference for cleaner structure.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

63%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 is specific and distinguishes a clear niche, but it omits an explicit "Use when..." trigger and natural trigger synonyms, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit and capping both completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases a user would say (e.g., "Use when a feature spec is ambiguous, incomplete, or before /speckit.plan").

Include common synonyms and concrete triggers (e.g., "spec gaps", "missing requirements", "ambiguous acceptance criteria") to improve trigger-term coverage.

Restate the description in third person with the when-to-use context to lift completeness from 3 to 4–5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and multiple concrete actions: "Identify underspecified areas", "asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions", and "encoding answers back into the spec" — comprehensive coverage for a focused workflow skill.

5 / 5

Completeness

Clearly states the "what" but provides no explicit "when should Claude use it" guidance; per the rubric, a missing "Use when..." clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant terms ("underspecified areas", "feature spec", "clarification questions") but lacks a "Use when..." trigger clause and common synonyms a user would naturally say, so coverage is partial.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The spec-clarification niche is clearly distinct and domain-specific, with only minor overlap risk against sibling spec-kit planning skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
mixpanel/mixpanel-headless
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.