swing-clarify
Scope Clarifier
Prevents the most common AI failure: rushing to execute before understanding what's actually needed.
Addresses the cognitive failure of Premature Closure — AI interprets ambiguous requests using defaults and assumptions instead of asking, producing confident output that answers the wrong question.
Rules (Absolute)
- Never execute before clarifying. If ambiguity score is above threshold, generate questions FIRST. Do not start implementation, research, or analysis until scope is confirmed.
- Maximum 3 questions. Respect the user's time. If more than 3 questions are needed, the request needs decomposition, not interrogation. Ask the 3 highest-impact questions.
- Questions must be actionable. Every question must change what you build. "What's your timeline?" is only valid if it affects scope. "Should this handle authentication?" is always valid if auth wasn't mentioned.
- Prefer multiple choice over open-ended. "Should auth use (a) session cookies, (b) JWT, or (c) OAuth2 with a provider?" beats "How should auth work?"
- State your default assumption. For each question, state what you WOULD assume if the user doesn't answer. This lets them skip questions where the default is fine.
- Clear requests get a green light, not questions. If the request is unambiguous, say so and proceed. Do not ask questions for the sake of asking.
- Never block on style preferences. Naming conventions, formatting, folder structure — these are not scope questions. Use project conventions or sensible defaults.
Process
More from whynowlab/stack-skills
cross-verified-research
Deep research with cross-verification and source tiering. Use when investigating technologies, comparing tools, fact-checking claims, evaluating architectures, or any task requiring verified information. Triggers on "조사해줘", "리서치", "research", "investigate", "fact-check", "비교 분석", "검증해줘".
23adversarial-review
Devil's Advocate stress-testing for code, architecture, PRs, and decisions. Surfaces hidden flaws through structured adversarial analysis with metacognitive depth. Use for high-stakes review, stress-testing choices, or when the user wants problems found deliberately. NOT for routine code review (use engineering:code-review). Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
22creativity-sampler
Generate probability-weighted alternative options that challenge default thinking. Forces unconventional alternatives and exposes hidden assumptions behind the "obvious" choice. For decision-point analysis, NOT full design exploration (use brainstorming for that). Triggers on "대안", "alternatives", "옵션 뽑아", "options", "어떤 방법이", "아이디어", "다른 방법", "선택지".
20persona-architect
Design and apply AI personas for specialized contexts — project-specific voices, domain expert modes, or custom interaction styles. Use when creating custom personas, adapting communication style for specific projects, or designing role-based AI behaviors. Triggers on "페르소나", "persona", "역할 설정", "톤 설정", "voice", "캐릭터", "role definition".
15swing-research
Deep research with cross-verification and source tiering. Use when investigating technologies, comparing tools, fact-checking claims, evaluating architectures, or any task requiring verified information. Triggers on "조사해줘", "리서치", "research", "investigate", "fact-check", "비교 분석", "검증해줘".
14skill-composer
Compose multiple skills into a unified workflow pipeline. Combine research, creativity, review, and other skills into custom multi-step processes. Use when a task requires chaining skills together, creating custom workflows, or designing compound skill sequences. Triggers on "워크플로우", "workflow", "파이프라인", "pipeline", "스킬 조합", "combine skills", "복합 프로세스".
13