ask-questions-if-underspecified
Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.
48
51%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/ask-questions-if-underspecified/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
17%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 domains, and natural trigger terms. While it technically includes a 'Use when' clause, the trigger condition ('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 software feature requirements, user stories, or acceptance criteria before writing code' instead of the generic 'clarify requirements before implementing'.
Replace the vague trigger 'serious doubts arise' with explicit, observable conditions — e.g., 'Use when a task description is ambiguous, missing acceptance criteria, or has conflicting constraints'.
Add natural trigger terms users might use, such as 'unclear spec', 'ambiguous requirements', 'what do you mean', 'need more details', or 'underspecified task'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
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). The 'Use when' clause exists but is extremely vague — 'serious doubts' is subjective and provides no concrete trigger guidance. | 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 implementation. 'Clarify requirements' and 'serious doubts' provide no distinct niche or domain specificity. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%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 with strong actionability through concrete question templates and a clear four-step workflow with appropriate validation gates. The content is mostly concise but has minor redundancy in the Limitations section and some overlap between sections. Overall, it provides excellent guidance for a behavioral skill that doesn't involve code execution.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy. The 'Limitations' section largely restates things Claude already knows, and the 'When NOT to Use' section partially overlaps with anti-patterns. The question templates section, while useful, is somewhat lengthy. However, most content earns its place. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, actionable guidance: specific question templates with exact formatting, a compact reply format (e.g., '1b 2a 3c'), clear examples of how to present defaults, and a ready-to-use code block template. The workflow steps are specific about what to do and not do. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: decide if underspecified → ask questions → pause before acting → confirm interpretation then proceed. The pause step acts as a validation gate, and the 'proceed without answers' path includes an explicit assumption-confirmation feedback loop. | 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, Question Templates, Anti-patterns, Limitations). The structure is scannable and appropriately sized without needing external references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
- Commit
4cc48db
- 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.