name: clarification-phase description: Executes the /clarify phase using AskUserQuestion tool to resolve ambiguities through structured questions (≤3), prioritization, and answer integration. Use when spec.md contains [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers, when requirements need disambiguation, or when running /clarify command to resolve critical scope/security/UX ambiguities before planning. (project)
- Extract [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers from spec.md
- Prioritize using matrix (Critical/High → ask, Medium/Low → assumptions)
- Call AskUserQuestion with ≤3 questions (batched, multiSelect for subsystems)
- Receive user answers synchronously
- Integrate into spec.md, remove all markers
- Add Clarifications (Resolved) section with deferred assumptions
Inputs: spec.md with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers Outputs: Updated spec.md (no markers), clarifications.md (record)
- Spec phase completed (spec.md exists)
- spec.md contains ≥1 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker (if none, skip /clarify)
- Git working tree clean
If clarification count >5, review spec phase quality (too many ambiguities).
Read spec.md, find all [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...] markers, extract ambiguity context.
# Count clarifications
grep -c "\[NEEDS CLARIFICATION" specs/NNN-slug/spec.md
# List with line numbers
grep -n "\[NEEDS CLARIFICATION" specs/NNN-slug/spec.md
If count = 0, skip /clarify phase.
Categorize each clarification by priority:
- Critical (always ask): Scope boundary, security/privacy, breaking changes
- High (ask if ambiguous): User experience decisions, functionality tradeoffs
- Medium (use defaults): Performance SLAs, technical stack choices
- Low (use standards): Error messages, rate limits
Keep only Critical + High priority questions (target: ≤3).
Convert Medium/Low to informed guesses, document as assumptions.
See references/prioritization-matrix.md for detailed categorization rules.
For each Critical/High priority clarification, structure as AskUserQuestion parameter:
AskUserQuestion format:
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question:
"spec.md:45 mentions 'dashboard metrics' but doesn't specify which. What should we display?",
header: "Metrics", // max 12 chars
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{
label: "Completion only",
description: "% of lessons finished (2 days, basic insights)",
},
{
label: "Completion + time",
description:
"Lessons finished + hours logged (4 days, actionable insights)",
},
{
label: "Full analytics",
description:
"Completion + time + quiz scores + engagement (7 days, requires infrastructure)",
},
],
},
],
});
Quality standards:
- question: Full context with spec.md reference (e.g., "spec.md:45 mentions...")
- header: Short label ≤12 chars (e.g., "Metrics", "Auth", "Scope")
- multiSelect: false for single choice, true for subsystems/features
- options: 2-3 concrete choices with impacts in description
- label: Concise option name (1-5 words)
- description: Implementation cost + value + tradeoffs (1-2 sentences)
Batch related questions (max 3 per AskUserQuestion call).
See references/question-bank.md for 40+ example questions in AskUserQuestion format.
For Medium/Low priority questions not asked, prepare assumptions section:
## Deferred Assumptions (Using Informed Guesses)
### [Topic]
**Not asked** (Low priority - standard default exists)
**Assumption**: [Concrete default choice]
**Rationale**: [Why this default is reasonable]
**Override**: [How user can override in spec.md]
These will be included in clarifications.md record after AskUserQuestion call.
Execute AskUserQuestion with batched Critical/High questions:
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question:
"spec.md:45 mentions 'dashboard metrics'. Which should we display?",
header: "Metrics",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Completion only", description: "2 days, basic insights" },
{
label: "Completion + time",
description: "4 days, actionable insights",
},
{
label: "Full analytics",
description: "7 days, requires infrastructure",
},
],
},
{
question:
"spec.md:67 doesn't specify access control model. Which approach?",
header: "Access",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{
label: "Simple (users/admins)",
description: "2 days, basic permissions",
},
{
label: "Role-based (RBAC)",
description: "4 days, flexible permissions",
},
],
},
],
});
Batching strategy:
- Batch 2-3 related questions per call
- Use multiSelect: true for subsystem/feature selection questions
- Use multiSelect: false for single-choice decisions
Tool returns answers object:
{
"Metrics": "Completion + time",
"Access": "Role-based (RBAC)"
}
User can also select "Other" for custom answers.
Use answers from AskUserQuestion tool response to update spec:
For each answered question:
- Locate corresponding [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker in spec.md
- Replace with concrete requirement based on selected option
- Remove marker
Example:
// AskUserQuestion returned:
{
"Metrics": "Completion + time",
"Access": "Role-based (RBAC)"
}
Update spec.md:
<!-- Before -->
Dashboard displays student progress [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Which metrics?]
Users can access dashboard [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Access control?]
<!-- After -->
Dashboard displays:
- Lesson completion rate (% of assigned lessons finished)
- Time spent per lesson (hours logged)
User access control (role-based):
- Teachers: View assigned students only
- Admins: View all students
- Students: View own progress only
Validate integration:
# Must return 0 (no markers remain)
grep -c "\[NEEDS CLARIFICATION" specs/NNN-slug/spec.md
Generate specs/NNN-slug/clarifications.md as historical record:
# Clarifications for [Feature Name]
**Date**: [timestamp]
**Questions Asked**: 2 (Critical: 1, High: 1)
**Deferred**: 3 assumptions
## Questions & Answers
### Q1: Dashboard Metrics (Critical)
**Question**: spec.md:45 mentions 'dashboard metrics'. Which should we display?
**Options**: Completion only | Completion + time | Full analytics
**Selected**: Completion + time
**Rationale**: Balances actionable insights with implementation cost (4 days vs 7)
### Q2: Access Control (High)
**Question**: spec.md:67 doesn't specify access control model. Which approach?
**Options**: Simple (users/admins) | Role-based (RBAC)
**Selected**: Role-based (RBAC)
**Rationale**: Future-proof for additional roles
## Deferred Assumptions
### Export Format (Low)
**Not asked** - Standard default exists
**Assumption**: CSV format
**Rationale**: Most compatible, industry standard
**Override**: Specify in spec.md if JSON/Excel needed
### Rate Limiting (Low)
**Not asked** - Reasonable default
**Assumption**: 100 requests/minute per user
**Rationale**: Conservative, prevents abuse
**Override**: Specify in spec.md if higher limits needed
Add "Clarifications (Resolved)" section to spec.md:
## Clarifications (Resolved)
Answered 2 questions on [date]:
1. Dashboard metrics: Completion + time spent (4 days)
2. Access control: Role-based RBAC (future-proof)
Deferred assumptions: Export format (CSV), Rate limiting (100/min)
See clarifications.md for full details.
git add specs/NNN-slug/clarifications.md specs/NNN-slug/spec.md
git commit -m "docs: resolve clarifications for [feature-name]
Answered N questions:
- [Q1 summary]: [Decision]
- [Q2 summary]: [Decision]
Deferred assumptions:
- [Topic]: [Choice] ([reason])
All [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers removed
Ready for planning phase"
Update state.yaml: clarification.status = completed
- All [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers removed from spec.md
- ≤3 structured questions asked (Critical + High only)
- Medium/Low priorities documented as assumptions
- Answers integrated into spec.md Requirements section
- Clarifications (Resolved) section added to spec.md
- clarifications.md generated with user answers
- state.yaml updated (clarification.status = completed)
- Git commit created with descriptive message
Why: Delays workflow, frustrates users, causes analysis paralysis Target: ≤3 questions total after prioritization
Example (bad):
7 questions for export feature:
1. Export format? (CSV/JSON) → Has default ❌
2. Which fields? → Critical ✅
3. Email notification? → Has default ❌
4. Rate limiting? → Has default ❌
5. Max file size? → Has default ❌
6. Retention period? → Has default ❌
7. Compress files? → Has default ❌
Should be:
1 question (Critical):
- Which fields to export? (no reasonable default)
6 deferred assumptions:
- Format: CSV (standard)
- Email: Optional (user preference)
- Rate limit: 100/min (reasonable)
- Max size: 50MB (standard)
- Retention: 90 days (compliance standard)
- Compression: Auto >10MB (performance)
✅ Do: Use AskUserQuestion with clear context, 2-3 concrete options, quantified impacts
Why: Unclear questions lead to ambiguous answers, require follow-up, waste time
Example (good with AskUserQuestion):
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question:
"spec.md:45 mentions 'progress' but doesn't specify which metrics to display. What should the dashboard show?",
header: "Metrics",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{
label: "Completion only",
description: "% of lessons finished (2 days, basic insights)",
},
{
label: "Completion + time",
description:
"Lessons finished + hours logged (4 days, actionable insights for identifying struggling students)",
},
{
label: "Full analytics",
description:
"Completion + time + quiz scores + engagement (7 days, requires analytics infrastructure)",
},
],
},
],
});
Result: Clear, specific options with quantified impacts - user can make informed decision.
Why: Planning phase can't proceed without concrete requirements in spec
Validation:
# Must return 0 (no markers remain)
grep -c "\[NEEDS CLARIFICATION" specs/NNN-slug/spec.md
Why: User doesn't know what defaults were applied, can't override if needed
Example:
## Deferred Assumptions
### Rate Limiting
**Not asked** (Low priority - reasonable default)
**Assumption**: 100 requests/minute per user
**Rationale**: Prevents abuse, can increase based on usage
**Override**: Specify in spec.md if higher limits needed
✅ Do: Provide 2-3 concrete options with quantified impacts
- Options: A/B/C with implementation costs + user value
Why: Open-ended answers are hard to integrate into spec, lead to follow-up questions
- question: Full context with spec.md reference (e.g., "spec.md:45 mentions...")
- header: Short label ≤12 chars (e.g., "Metrics", "Auth")
- options: 2-3 concrete choices with implementation costs in description
- multiSelect: false for single choice, true for subsystems/features
Example:
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "spec.md:45 mentions 'metrics'. What should we display?",
header: "Metrics",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Completion only", description: "2 days, basic" },
{ label: "Completion + time", description: "4 days, actionable" },
{ label: "Full analytics", description: "7 days, complex" },
],
},
],
});
Result: Clear answers, faster decisions, easy spec integration
Target: ≤3 questions (Critical + High only)
Result: Focused user attention, faster responses, reasonable defaults
Result: Complete spec, ready for planning phase
- All [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers removed from spec.md (grep returns 0)
- ≤3 structured questions asked (Critical + High priority only)
- Medium/Low questions documented as assumptions with rationale
- User provided answers to all questions
- Answers integrated into spec.md Requirements section
- Clarifications (Resolved) section added to spec.md
- clarifications.md generated with questions + answers
- Deferred assumptions documented in clarifications.md
- Git commit created with descriptive message
- state.yaml updated (clarification.status = completed)
- spec.md is complete and unambiguous (ready for /plan)
- Question count: ≤3 per feature
- Question clarity: 100% follow structured format (Context → Options → Impact)
- Response integration: 100% (no remaining markers)
- Follow-up questions: <10%
- Time to resolution: ≤2 hours (excluding user response time)
Good clarifications:
- ≤3 questions (rigorously prioritized)
- Structured format (Context → Options → Impact → Recommendation)
- Concrete options (2-3 specific choices, not open-ended)
- Quantified impacts (implementation costs + user value)
- Clear recommendations (suggested option with rationale)
- Complete integration (all markers removed from spec)
Bad clarifications:
5 questions (didn't prioritize)
- Vague questions ("What should we do?")
- Compound questions (mixing multiple decisions)
- No options (open-ended)
- Missing integration (markers remain in spec)
Issue: Questions are vague Solution: Use AskUserQuestion format with clear context + spec reference, 2-3 concrete options, quantified impacts in description
Issue: User can't choose between options Solution: Add more context to question text, include cost/benefit tradeoffs in option descriptions
Issue: AskUserQuestion header too long Solution: Keep header ≤12 chars (e.g., "Metrics" not "Dashboard Metrics Scope")
Issue: [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain after integration Solution: Extract answers from AskUserQuestion response, update spec.md for each marker, run validation check
Issue: Planning phase blocked due to ambiguity Solution: Spec integration incomplete, verify answers mapped to spec requirements correctly
See templates/ for:
- clarification-template.md (clarifications.md record template)
Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.