clarify

name	clarify
description	Chained clarity review of a repo, plan, or work items — combines code review, plan refinement, deep-module architecture, DRY/cruft, and naming analysis. Use for clarify/defuzz/audit/harden/fresh-eyes requests.
metadata	{"category":"developer tools","blurb":"Turns fuzzy repos, plans, diffs, or issue sets into clearer findings, fixes, names, and acceptance criteria using an evidence-first review chain.","keywords":["clarify"]}

Clarify

Use this skill to move a target from fuzzy or error-prone toward implementation-ready clarity. The target may be a repository, uncommitted diff, plan, beads/work items, or a mix of plan plus code.

The workflow is intentionally chained. Each pass should feed the next pass with concrete findings, not restart from taste or vague preference.

Operating Rules

• Start by identifying the target: codebase, uncommitted diff, recent changes, plan, beads/work items, or mixed target. Ask one blocking question only if the target is genuinely unclear.
• Prefer evidence from files, diffs, tests, docs, work items, and execution traces over style opinions.
• Preserve already-firm specifications. Change only the parts that are wrong, ambiguous, duplicated, shallow, or misleading.
• Make small granular edits when editing shared artifacts. Assume other agents may be working in the same tree.
• Do not create churn. Repeated runs should converge: update existing findings, ledgers, issues, or plan text instead of duplicating them.
• If changing code, preserve behavior unless the review finds a real bug. Add or update focused tests when the risk justifies it.
• When producing issues, include title, problem, suggested remediation, and acceptance criteria.

Chain Overview

Run the passes in this order unless the user asks for a narrower mode:

1. Frame the target and evidence.
2. Fresh-eyes code review for correctness blunders and root causes.
3. Defuzz plans or work items by resolving missing mechanics.
4. Deep Modules pass for caller burden, Interface shape, Depth, Leverage, and Locality.
5. DRY/cruft pass for duplicated behavior, drift, dead compatibility code, and scattered ownership.
6. Naming pass for boundary-aware vocabulary convergence.
7. Consolidate into edits, tests, ledger updates, or issues.

Skip a pass only when it clearly does not apply, and say so briefly in the final result.

Pass 1: Frame

Build a concise target map before judging anything.

For code:

• Inspect git status, recent commits, uncommitted diffs, entrypoints, tests, docs, and core modules.
• Focus uncommitted code and recent changes first.
• Map execution flows and ownership boundaries before extracting or renaming anything.

For plans or work items:

• Identify the goal, actors, data, state changes, external systems, acceptance criteria, and unresolved assumptions.
• Separate firm specifications from low-resolution areas.

For mixed targets:

• Align planned names and concepts with the existing code vocabulary unless the existing vocabulary is the source of confusion.

Pass 2: Fresh-Eyes Code Review

Review the target as if checking another agent's work for blunders, mistakes, omissions, misconceptions, logic errors, and bugs.

Prioritize:

• correctness and behavior regressions
• uncommitted and recent changes
• unsafe assumptions
• missing error handling or state transitions
• tests that would not catch the suspected failure
• root causes, not symptoms

For each significant finding, include:

• severity or issue level if the repo uses levels
• file and line evidence
• observed or likely failure mode
• first-principles root cause
• smallest safe fix or revision

If implementation is requested or clearly implied, fix the issue after diagnosing it.

Pass 3: Defuzz Plans And Work Items

Use this pass when the target includes a plan, beads, tickets, PRD, architecture note, or task list.

Look for:

• ambiguity pockets where the "what" exists but the "how" is missing
• implied mechanisms such as "sync," "authenticate," "hydrate," "validate," "route," or "persist" without execution details
• under-specified Interfaces, data handoffs, state boundaries, or ownership boundaries
• logic gaps where intermediate steps are assumed rather than specified

Edit the plan in place only where needed:

• replace broad directives with deterministic mechanics
• add concrete state changes, data structures, API calls, control flow, contracts, or acceptance criteria
• leave resolved sections untouched
• preserve the core architecture unless a real contradiction is found

Pass 4: Deep Modules

Use the Deep Module principle: a good Module gives callers a small simple Interface while hiding substantial useful Implementation.

Vocabulary:

• Module: anything with an Interface and Implementation.
• Interface: everything a caller must understand to use the Module correctly: names, types, invariants, ordering, errors, configuration, lifecycle, and hidden assumptions.
• Implementation: behavior hidden behind the Interface.
• Depth: leverage provided by a small Interface.
• Seam: where behavior can change without editing callers in place.
• Adapter: concrete Implementation satisfying an Interface at a Seam.
• Leverage: what callers gain.
• Locality: what maintainers gain when behavior, bugs, tests, and decisions are concentrated.

Find places where callers know too much:

• repeated validation, ordering, error interpretation, retries, or configuration
• callers coordinating the same multi-step sequence
• tests mocking internals instead of proving behavior through an Interface
• pass-through Modules whose Interface is as complex as their Implementation
• fake Seams with only one Adapter and no real variation

Flag dry gates — a verdict codified mid-module for a decider never identified (write-time rejection, no ledger of what's held, unchecked pass-set). Every gate must be a consumed gate: its consumer named, both outcomes reaching a terminus (surface, logs, or next Module), placed at a Seam — else demote the verdict to an annotation. Litmus: who consumes? where do held items land? has anything real passed?

Apply the deletion test:

• If deleting a Module removes noise, it may be shallow.
• If deleting it leaks knowledge into many callers, it may be earning its keep.

If the repo has architecture docs, maintain or create docs/deep-modules.md only when permitted by the repo's scaffolding rules. Use stable entries:

## DM-001: <short name>

Status: proposed | accepted | implemented | rejected | obsolete
Area:
Domain concept:
Problem:
Deletion test:
Proposed deepening:
Interface shape:
Expected leverage:
Expected locality:
Testing impact:
Decision notes:
Last checked:

Prefer one high-confidence deepening over many speculative abstractions.

Pass 5: DRY And Cruft

Audit duplication as repeated behavior, not repeated text.

Look for:

• duplicate validation, parsing, mapping, retry, logging, headers, JSON envelopes, method guards, or error logic
• one domain concept modeled by hand in multiple layers with different names
• drift such as q/query, count/pageSize, dto/model, route/client variants
• copied helpers with minor edits
• duplicate CLI/API/schema rules enforced in both parser and runtime layers
• old aliases, legacy branches, unused Adapters, stale flags, and compatibility code left behind after replacement

Do not abstract endpoint-specific logic that is semantically different. Abstract shared control flow or assign one clear owner for the shared concept.

For each finding, record:

• files and line evidence
• repeated behavior
• user-visible or maintainer-visible risk of drift
• smallest safe remediation: helper, factory, registry, typed Adapter, stronger owner, or deletion
• whether duplication is intentional and should stay separate

Rank concept drift first, route or CLI plumbing second, cosmetic repeats last.

Pass 6: Boundary-Aware Naming

Do not begin by renaming. First understand boundaries and vocabulary.

Build a concept map:

• concept
• current names
• locations
• owning Module or boundary
• adjacent concepts that are easy to confuse
• status: canonical, inconsistent, overloaded, ambiguous, or misleading

Check failure modes:

• one word used for multiple concepts
• multiple words used for one concept
• module or folder names that do not match responsibility
• names that blur layer, state, ownership, source/target, internal/external, template/instance, definition/execution, or input/output distinctions
• vague names such as Manager, Helper, Utils, Processor, Handler, Engine, Core, Common, Misc, Data, or Info unless narrowly justified
• weak suffixes such as Data, Info, Payload, New, or 2
• singular/plural, verb/noun, entity/model/schema/DTO/record drift

Recommend the smallest set of renames that gives the largest clarity gain. Distinguish public/API names, shared internal names, and local names. For each issue, include current name, scope, intended concept, confusion type, recommended action, confidence, blast radius, and timing.

Pass 7: Consolidate

Merge findings across passes so the output is actionable rather than repetitive.

If reviewing only, return:

• target analyzed
• passes run and skipped
• highest-severity findings first
• root causes
• recommended fixes or issues
• assumptions and residual risks

If editing, make the smallest safe changes, then report:

• files changed
• why the changes improve correctness, specificity, Depth, DRYness, or naming clarity
• tests run and results
• any ledger, plan, or issue updates

If producing issues, use:

Title:
Problem:
Suggested remediation:
Acceptance criteria:
Evidence:
Priority:

Output Templates

Use these shapes when they fit.

Clarify Review

# Clarify Review

## Target
<codebase | diff | plan | beads | mixed>

## Findings
1. <severity>: <finding>
   Evidence:
   Root cause:
   Fix:

## Plan/Spec Gaps
- ...

## Deep Module Opportunity
- Module:
- Caller burden:
- Interface shape:
- Locality gain:

## DRY/Cruft
- ...

## Naming
- ...

## Issues
- ...

## Assumptions
- ...

Clarify Change

# Clarify Change

## Changed
- ...

## Why
- Correctness:
- Specificity:
- Depth:
- DRY:
- Naming:

## Tests
- ...

## Follow-Up Issues
- ...

## Assumptions
- ...