| name | clarification-strategies |
| description | Strategies for auditing specifications and reducing ambiguity. Use when running `/sddp-clarify` or whenever an agent needs to critique a requirement. |
Clarification Strategies
Ambiguity Audit Patterns
Patterns to identify weak requirements in spec.md:
1. The "Adverb Trap"
Pattern: "quickly", "easily", "efficiently", "seamlessly".
Critique: "Define 'quickly'. <200ms? <1s? Define 'easily'. How many clicks?"
Goal: Convert subjective adverbs to measurable metrics.
2. The Passive Voice
Pattern: "The user is notified..." / "The data is processed..."
Critique: "WHO notifies? Email? SMS? Toast? WHAT processes? Background job? Synchronous call?"
Goal: Identify specific actor and mechanism.
3. The "Unspecified Scale"
Pattern: "Handle user uploads" without size limits.
Critique: "Max file size? Allowed types? Expected concurrency?"
Goal: Define boundary constraints for Plan phase.
4. The "Missing Failure Mode"
Pattern: "User logs in successfully."
Critique: "Wrong password? Locked account? DB down?"
Goal: Ensure error paths defined in User Scenarios.
5. The "Scope Creep" Detector
Pattern: "Integration with 3rd party providers" (plural) when one suffices for MVP.
Critique: "Which specific providers for V1? Can we limit to one?"
Goal: Narrow scope, reduce complexity.
Questioning Protocol
When generating questions:
- Group by Impact: Security > Scope > UX > Technical.
- Propose a Default: "Should we default to JWT for auth, or do you have a specific requirement?"
- Limit Volume: Max 8 critical questions at a time.
- Reference Lines: Point to specific line in
spec.md where ambiguity exists.
