spec-kitty-clarify

name	spec-kitty-clarify
description	Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Outline

Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.

Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking /spec-kitty.plan. If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases.

Execution steps:

1. Run spec-kitty agent feature check-prerequisites --json --paths-only from the repository root and parse JSON for:

   • feature_dir - Absolute path to feature directory (e.g., /path/to/kitty-specs/017-my-feature/)
   • FEATURE_SPEC - Absolute path to spec.md file
   • target_branch / base_branch (deterministic branch contract)
   • If command fails or JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to run /spec-kitty.specify first or verify they are in a spec-kitty-initialized repository.

2. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).

   Functional Scope & Behavior:

   • Core user goals & success criteria
   • Explicit out-of-scope declarations
   • User roles / personas differentiation

   Domain & Data Model:

   • Entities, attributes, relationships
   • Identity & uniqueness rules
   • Lifecycle/state transitions
   • Data volume / scale assumptions

   Interaction & UX Flow:

   • Critical user journeys / sequences
   • Error/empty/loading states
   • Accessibility or localization notes

   Non-Functional Quality Attributes:

   • Performance (latency, throughput targets)
   • Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits)
   • Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)
   • Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)
   • Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions)
   • Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any)

   Integration & External Dependencies:

   • External services/APIs and failure modes
   • Data import/export formats
   • Protocol/versioning assumptions

   Edge Cases & Failure Handling:

   • Negative scenarios
   • Rate limiting / throttling
   • Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits)

   Constraints & Tradeoffs:

   • Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting)
   • Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives

   Terminology & Consistency:

   • Canonical glossary terms
   • Avoided synonyms / deprecated terms

   Completion Signals:

   • Acceptance criteria testability
   • Measurable Definition of Done style indicators

   Misc / Placeholders:

   • TODO markers / unresolved decisions
   • Ambiguous adjectives ("robust", "intuitive") lacking quantification

   For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless:

   • Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy
   • Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally)

3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:

   • Maximum of 10 total questions across the whole session.
   • Each question must be answerable with EITHER:
     • A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR
     • A one-word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in <=5 words").
   • Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.
   • Ensure category coverage balance: attempt to cover the highest impact unresolved categories first; avoid asking two low-impact questions when a single high-impact area (e.g., security posture) is unresolved.
   • Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).
   • Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.
   • Scale thoroughness to the feature’s complexity: a lightweight enhancement may only need one or two confirmations, while multi-system efforts warrant the full question budget if gaps remain critical.
   • If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.

4. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):

   • Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.
   • For multiple-choice questions, list options inline using letter prefixes rather than tables, e.g.
     Options: (A) describe option A · (B) describe option B · (C) describe option C · (D) short custom answer (<=5 words)
     Ask the user to reply with the letter (or short custom text when offered).
   • For short-answer style (no meaningful discrete options), output a single line after the question: Format: Short answer (<=5 words).
   • After the user answers:
     • Validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint.
     • If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).
     • Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.
   • Stop asking further questions when:
     • All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR
     • User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR
     • You reach 5 asked questions.
   • Never reveal future queued questions in advance.
   • If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.

5. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):

   • Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.
   • For the first integrated answer in this session:
     • Ensure a ## Clarifications section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing).
     • Under it, create (if not present) a ### Session YYYY-MM-DD subheading for today.
   • Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: - Q: <question> → A: <final answer>.
   • Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):
     • Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.
     • User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.
     • Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.
     • Non-functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Non-Functional / Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).
     • Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).
     • Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding (formerly referred to as "X") once.
   • If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.
   • Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).
   • Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.
   • Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift).

6. Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass):

   • Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet per accepted answer (no duplicates).
   • Total asked (accepted) questions ≤ 5.
   • Updated sections contain no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve.
   • No contradictory earlier statement remains (scan for now-invalid alternative choices removed).
   • Markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings: ## Clarifications, ### Session YYYY-MM-DD.
   • Terminology consistency: same canonical term used across all updated sections.

7. Write the updated spec back to FEATURE_SPEC.

8. Report completion (after questioning loop ends or early termination):

   • Number of questions asked & answered.
   • Path to updated spec.
   • Sections touched (list names).
   • Coverage summary listing each taxonomy category with a status label (Resolved / Deferred / Clear / Outstanding). Present as plain text or bullet list, not a table.
   • If any Outstanding or Deferred remain, recommend whether to proceed to /spec-kitty.plan or run /spec-kitty.clarify again later post-plan.
   • Suggested next command.

Behavior rules:

• If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: "No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification." and suggest proceeding.
• If spec file missing, instruct user to run /spec-kitty.specify first (do not create a new spec here).
• Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).
• Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.
• Respect user early termination signals ("stop", "done", "proceed").
• If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.
• If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.

Context for prioritization: User arguments from $ARGUMENTS section above (if provided). Use these to focus clarification on specific areas of concern mentioned by the user.