ask-questions-if-underspecified
Clarify requirements before implementing. Do not use automatically, only when invoked explicitly.
Best use case
ask-questions-if-underspecified is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Clarify requirements before implementing. Do not use automatically, only when invoked explicitly.
Teams using ask-questions-if-underspecified should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/ask-questions-if-underspecified/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How ask-questions-if-underspecified Compares
| Feature / Agent | ask-questions-if-underspecified | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Clarify requirements before implementing. Do not use automatically, only when invoked explicitly.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Ask Questions If Underspecified ## Goal Ask the minimum set of clarifying questions needed to avoid wrong work; do not start implementing until the must-have questions are answered (or the user explicitly approves proceeding with stated assumptions). ## Workflow ### 1) Decide whether the request is underspecified Treat a request as underspecified if after exploring how to perform the work, some or all of the following are not clear: - Define the objective (what should change vs stay the same) - Define "done" (acceptance criteria, examples, edge cases) - Define scope (which files/components/users are in/out) - Define constraints (compatibility, performance, style, deps, time) - Identify environment (language/runtime versions, OS, build/test runner) - Clarify safety/reversibility (data migration, rollout/rollback, risk) If multiple plausible interpretations exist, assume it is underspecified. ### 2) Ask must-have questions first (keep it small) Ask 1-5 questions in the first pass. Prefer questions that eliminate whole branches of work. Make questions easy to answer: - Optimize for scannability (short, numbered questions; avoid paragraphs) - Offer multiple-choice options when possible - Suggest reasonable defaults when appropriate (mark them clearly as the default/recommended choice; bold the recommended choice in the list, or if you present options in a code block, put a bold "Recommended" line immediately above the block and also tag defaults inside the block) - Include a fast-path response (e.g., reply `defaults` to accept all recommended/default choices) - Include a low-friction "not sure" option when helpful (e.g., "Not sure - use default") - Separate "Need to know" from "Nice to know" if that reduces friction - Justify your choices (e.g., explain why a particular option is recommended in plain English) - Structure options so the user can respond with compact decisions (e.g., `1b 2a 3c`); restate the chosen options in plain language to confirm ### 3) Pause before acting Until must-have answers arrive: - Do not run commands, edit files, or produce a detailed plan that depends on unknowns - Do perform a clearly labeled, low-risk discovery step only if it does not commit you to a direction (e.g., inspect repo structure, read relevant config files) If the user explicitly asks you to proceed without answers: - State your assumptions as a short numbered list - Ask for confirmation; proceed only after they confirm or correct them ### 4) Confirm interpretation, then proceed Once you have answers, restate the requirements in 1-3 sentences (including key constraints and what success looks like), then start work. ## Question templates - "Before I start, I need: (1) ..., (2) ..., (3) .... If you don't care about (2), I will assume ...." - "Which of these should it be? A) ... B) ... C) ... (pick one)" - "What would you consider 'done'? For example: ..." - "Any constraints I must follow (versions, performance, style, deps)? If none, I will target the existing project defaults." - Use numbered questions with lettered options and a clear reply format ```text 1) Scope? a) Minimal change (default) b) Refactor while touching the area c) Not sure - use default 2) Compatibility target? a) Current project defaults (default) b) Also support older versions: <specify> c) Not sure - use default Reply with: defaults (or 1a 2a) ``` ## Anti-patterns - Don't ask questions you can answer with a quick, low-risk discovery read (e.g., configs, existing patterns, docs). - Don't ask open-ended questions if a tight multiple-choice or yes/no would eliminate ambiguity faster.
Related Skills
skill-creator
Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, update or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.
modular-skills-architect
Map and refactor an agent context ecosystem: skills, commands/workflows, hooks, agent files, AGENTS.md templates, and docs. Output system map, module/dependency design, Register updates, and a concrete split/consolidate/rename/delete plan. Use when routing or ownership is messy.
heal-skill
This skill should be used when fixing incorrect SKILL.md files with outdated instructions or APIs.
create-agent-skills
Expert guidance for creating, writing, and refining Claude Code Skills. Use when working with SKILL.md files, authoring new skills, improving existing skills, or understanding skill structure and best practices.
agent-native-audit
Comprehensive agent-native architecture audit with scored principles and multi-slice review. Use for system-wide health checks or periodic audits.
write-judge-prompt
Design LLM-as-Judge evaluators for subjective criteria that code-based checks cannot handle. Use when a failure mode requires interpretation (tone, faithfulness, relevance, completeness). Do NOT use when the failure mode can be checked with code (regex, schema validation, execution tests). Do NOT use when you need to validate or calibrate the judge — use validate-evaluator instead.
validate-evaluator
Calibrate an LLM judge against human labels using data splits, TPR/TNR, and bias correction. Use after writing a judge prompt (write-judge-prompt) when you need to verify alignment before trusting its outputs. Do NOT use for code-based evaluators (those are deterministic; test with standard unit tests).
generate-synthetic-data
Create diverse synthetic test inputs for LLM pipeline evaluation using dimension-based tuple generation. Use when bootstrapping an eval dataset, when real user data is sparse, or when stress-testing specific failure hypotheses. Do NOT use when you already have 100+ representative real traces (use stratified sampling instead), or when the task is collecting production logs.
evaluate-rag
Guides evaluation of RAG pipeline retrieval and generation quality. Use when evaluating a retrieval-augmented generation system, measuring retrieval quality, assessing generation faithfulness or relevance, generating synthetic QA pairs for retrieval testing, or optimizing chunking strategies.
eval-audit
Audit an LLM eval pipeline and surface problems: missing error analysis, unvalidated judges, vanity metrics, etc. Use when inheriting an eval system, when unsure whether evals are trustworthy, or as a starting point when no eval infrastructure exists. Do NOT use when the goal is to build a new evaluator from scratch (use error-analysis, write-judge-prompt, or validate-evaluator instead).
error-analysis
Help the user systematically identify and categorize failure modes in an LLM pipeline by reading traces. Use when starting a new eval project, after significant pipeline changes (new features, model switches, prompt rewrites), when production metrics drop, or after incidents.
build-review-interface
Build a custom browser-based annotation interface tailored to your data for reviewing LLM traces and collecting structured feedback. Use when you need to build an annotation tool, review traces, or collect human labels.