CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ask-questions-if-underspecified

Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.

48

Quality

51%

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 ./skills/ask-questions-if-underspecified/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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 instruction-only skill that provides clear, actionable guidance for handling underspecified requests. Its greatest strengths are the explicit workflow with validation checkpoints, concrete question templates with compact reply formats, and clear anti-patterns. Minor weaknesses include some redundancy between sections (Limitations vs. When NOT to Use vs. Anti-patterns) and slightly more verbosity than strictly necessary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy—the 'Limitations' section largely restates things already covered, and the 'When NOT to Use' section partially overlaps with anti-patterns. The question templates section, while useful, is somewhat lengthy. Overall mostly efficient but could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides highly concrete, actionable guidance: specific question templates with exact formatting, a compact reply format (e.g., '1a 2a'), clear anti-patterns, and explicit behavioral instructions (pause before acting, state assumptions as numbered list). For an instruction-only skill, this is fully actionable and copy-paste ready.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: decide if underspecified → ask questions → pause before acting (with clear constraints on what is/isn't allowed) → confirm interpretation then proceed. The pause step serves as a validation checkpoint, and the confirmation step closes the feedback loop. Error recovery is addressed (user asks to proceed without answers → state assumptions → get confirmation).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

For a standalone skill with no bundle files, the content is well-organized with clear sections (When to Use, When NOT to Use, Goal, Workflow with numbered sub-steps, Question Templates, Anti-patterns, Limitations). The structure is scannable and appropriately sized for a single file without needing external references.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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 abstract 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 what domain or type of requirements this applies to (e.g., 'Asks clarifying questions about software feature requirements, API specifications, or design constraints before writing code').

Replace the vague 'when serious doubts arise' with concrete trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user's request is ambiguous, underspecified, or could be interpreted multiple ways'.

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

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 abstract terms.

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 clear boundaries.

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.

Validation — 10 / 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
popey/claude-code-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.