ワンクリックで
clarification-protocol
When and how to ask clarifying questions before implementing. Data model review gate and ambiguity resolution rules.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
メニュー
When and how to ask clarifying questions before implementing. Data model review gate and ambiguity resolution rules.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Multi-agent delegation rules, three-phase workflow (Plan/Build/Review), model selection, collaboration gates, and Ralph Loop integration.
Autonomous build driver after SDD spec approval: phase-scoped headless build sessions, driver-owned commits, cross-provider review gates, milestone pauses, and fail-closed escalation — under explicit opt-in autonomy profiles.
Quality gates, prohibited patterns, verification discipline, and self-audit rules for all code generation and review sessions.
Cross-copilot portable conventions: read before write, minimal changes, git discipline, project structure, and priority rules.
Copyright header rules for generated source files. Applies the company name from providers.toml to new files.
Derive a unique, domain-fit design direction and enforce design-token + anti-slop discipline. Read/author DESIGN.md before building any UI; override framework defaults so output is bespoke by construction, not generic.
| name | clarification-protocol |
| description | When and how to ask clarifying questions before implementing. Data model review gate and ambiguity resolution rules. |
Rules for when to ask clarifying questions instead of making assumptions.
Before creating or modifying entity fields, confirm with the user:
createdAt, updatedAt, deletedAt, createdBy?)Don't assume the simplest representation. Compound fields that seem fine early often need to be split later for filtering, sorting, or reporting.
Before generating reports, exports, or formatted output:
Generating the wrong format costs a full rebuild. Asking costs one message.
Before implementing visual components:
Before implementing authentication or authorization:
Auth decisions are expensive to change after implementation. Get them right upfront.
Keep clarifying questions concise and decision-oriented:
Bad: "I'm going to implement the user profile model. There are several fields to consider including name representation, location storage, contact information format, and various audit fields. What are your preferences for each of these aspects?"
Good: "Before I create the Profile model, two quick decisions:
displayName field, or split into components?Present the options with their tradeoffs. Let the user decide quickly.
Don't ask about:
The goal is to ask about decisions that affect user-facing behavior or data model shape, not about code internals.
For larger features where you have a rough idea but haven't worked through the details, invert the default clarification flow: instead of you asking Claude questions, have Claude interview you.
Start a fresh session with a minimal prompt and ask Claude to interview you:
"I want to build [brief description].
Interview me in detail using the
AskUserQuestiontool. Ask about technical implementation, UI/UX, edge cases, and tradeoffs. Don't ask obvious questions — dig into the hard parts I might not have considered. Keep going until you have enough to write a complete spec."
Once the interview is done and a spec has been produced:
specs/<feature-id>/spec.md and specs/<feature-id>/plan.md per SDD conventions.This pattern works well with Opus 4.7's adaptive thinking: deep questioning during planning, then a clean Build session with cached context for execution.
Review gate checklist before implementing data models. This gate occurs after planning/scaffolding, before delegating build tasks to agents.
Before any agent writes entity code or migration scripts:
Review entity relationships with user.
Confirm field granularity.
displayName vs separate parts)Validate relationships.
Standard fields on all entities.
id — primary key (UUID or auto-increment, per project convention)createdAt — timestamp, auto-set on creationupdatedAt — timestamp, auto-set on modificationdeletedAt — nullable timestamp for soft delete (if applicable)Keep schema and design documentation in sync.
Prevent mid-phase schema changes.
| Pitfall | Fix |
|---|---|
Ambiguous names (name, value, data) | Use specific, descriptive names: accountBalance, taskStatus, eventDate |
| Flat structure needing normalization | Extract into a separate entity with one-to-many relationship to parent |
| Flat structure with too many fields | Normalize into separate entities connected by foreign keys |
| No audit trail | Add createdBy, updatedBy fields, or a separate AuditLog entity |
| Hard delete only | Use soft delete with deletedAt timestamp; filter in queries |
| No indexes on foreign keys | Add indexes on all FK fields and commonly filtered/sorted columns |
| Enum sprawl | Use a status/type table for values that change frequently |
This gate runs after Phase 1 (scaffolding/planning) and before Phase 2 (parallel agent delegation). Never skip it — mid-phase schema corrections cost more than upfront review.