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/swing-skills
swing-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".
40swing-trace
Exposes Claude's reasoning chain as an auditable, decomposable artifact. Quick mode (default) gives assumption inventory + weakest-link in 2 stages. Full mode (--full) adds decision branching, confidence decomposition, and falsification conditions. Triggers on "왜 그렇게 생각해", "reasoning", "근거", "show your work", "어떻게 그 결론이", "trace", "판단 근거", "why do you think that".
40swing-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. Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
40swing-options
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. Triggers on "대안", "alternatives", "옵션 뽑아", "options", "어떤 방법이", "아이디어", "다른 방법", "선택지".
39swing-mortem
Prospective failure analysis using Gary Klein's pre-mortem technique. Assumes complete failure, works backward to identify risks, leading indicators, and circuit breakers. Counters optimism bias by forcing systematic exploration of failure modes before they materialize. Use for project plans, architecture decisions, technology adoption, business strategy, or feature launches. Triggers on "리스크", "위험", "실패하면", "swing-mortem", "뭐가 잘못될 수 있어", "risk", "what could go wrong", "걱정되는 점", "failure modes", "리스크 분석", "위험 분석".
39