intent
Turn rough ideas into clear work orders before planning or building. Use when request is vague like "add a button", "make it better", "fix the thing". Triggers on ambiguous or underspecified requests. Produces a brief with scope, acceptance criteria, and stop conditions.
What this skill does
Clarify WHAT before building anything. Every criterion must be testable by a stranger. Clarity over completeness — a partial spec with boolean criteria beats a thorough spec with vague ones. A brief with invented details is worse than a shorter brief grounded in what the user said — assumptions compound silently downstream. ## Workflow ### Step 1: Understand State what you heard in 1-2 sentences. If the task arrives with structured input (proposal, design, specs, task list), extract and validate — don't re-clarify. ### Step 2: Close gaps Loop using AskUserQuestion — up to 3 questions per round, max 8 rounds. At least one question across all rounds should be "what should this NOT do?" After each round, list remaining unknowns — things you'd have to invent if you wrote the brief right now. If the list is non-empty, ask another round targeting those unknowns. If empty, move to step 3. ### Step 3: Echo Compress to one sentence (≤35 words): deliverable + top constraint. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm: - **Lock it in** — proceed to assumptions review - **Edit something** — revise, then re-echo - **Explore risks** — surface failure scenarios, then return to this choice ### Step 4: Review assumptions Before generating the brief, list every detail you would need to invent — things the user never stated (numbers, thresholds, scope boundaries, tech choices). Present each assumption via AskUserQuestion with "Accept" and 2-3 concrete alternatives. Batch unrelated assumptions together, separate dependent ones. If there are zero assumptions, skip to step 5. ### Step 5: Recommended practices If the task is straightforward with clear precedent, skip to step 6. Present best practices, thresholds, and standards the agent would add beyond what the user stated. Each with a one-line rationale explaining why it matters. Use AskUserQuestion (multiSelect) so the user can cherry-pick which to promote into acceptance criteria. Selected items become acceptance criteria in the brief. Unselected items stay in a "Recommended Practices" section as suggestions. ### Step 6: Emit brief Only after steps 4 and 5 are complete. The core brief contains only what came from the user or was approved in steps 4-5. Scale sections to task stakes — a small fix doesn't need 5 non-goals. Structure: - OBJECTIVE (1 line) - NON-GOALS (3-5) - CONSTRAINTS - ACCEPTANCE — only criteria from user answers (step 2), approved assumptions (step 4), or promoted practices (step 5). A shorter honest list beats a padded one. - STOP CONDITIONS (3-5 observable failures) - RECOMMENDED PRACTICES — unselected items from step 5, kept as suggestions for reference. ## Boundaries User owns intent. If they say "I know what I want," proceed without clarification. When interpretations diverge, present options — never pick for them.
Related in Code Review
gstack
IncludedFast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)
startup-due-diligence
IncludedLegal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
interview-master
IncludedThis skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.
fix-issue
IncludedFixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.
sf-apex
IncludedGenerates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.
swift-development
IncludedComprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.