Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.

User Input You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). Pre Execution Checks Check for extension hooks (before clarification) : Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root. If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.before clarify key If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally Filter out hooks where enabled is explicitly false . Treat hooks without an enabled field as enabled by default. For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook condition expressions: If the hook has no condition field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable If the hook defines a non empty condition , skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation When constructing command invocations from hook command names, replace dots ( . ) with hyphens ( ). For example, speckit.git.commit → /speckit git commit . For each executable hook, output the following based on its optional flag: Optional hook ( optional: true ): Mandatory hook ( optional: false ): After emitting the block above you MUST actually invoke the hook and wait for it to finish before continuing. Run it the same way you would run the command yourself in this agent/session (the invocation may differ from the literal {command} id shown above, e.g. a skills mode agent runs it as /skill:speckit ... or $speckit ... ). Emitting the block alone does not run the hook. If no hooks are registered or .specify/extensions.yml does not exist, skip silently Outline Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file. Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking /speckit plan . If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases. Execution steps: 1. Run .specify/scripts/bash/check prerequisites.sh json paths only from repo root once (combined json paths only mode / Json PathsOnly ). Parse minimal JSON payload fields: FEATURE DIR FEATURE SPEC (Optionally capture IMPL PLAN , TASKS for future chained flows.) If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re run /speckit specify or verify feature branch environment. For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double quote if possible: "I'm Groot"). 2. IF EXISTS : Load .specify/memory/constitution.md for project principles and governance constraints. 3. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked). Functional Scope & Behavior: Core user goals & success criteria Explicit out of scope declarations User roles / personas differentiation Domain & Data Model: Entities, attributes, relationships Identity & uniqueness rules Lifecycle/state transitions Data volume / scale assumptions Interaction & UX Flow: Critical user journeys / sequences Error/empty/loading states Accessibility or localization notes Non Functional Quality Attributes: Performance (latency, throughput targets) Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits) Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations) Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals) Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions) Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any) Integration & External Dependencies: External services/APIs and failure modes Data import/export formats Protocol/versioning assumptions Edge Cases & Failure Handling: Negative scenarios Rate limiting / throttling Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits) Constraints & Tradeoffs: Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting) Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives Terminology & Consistency: Canonical glossary terms Avoided synonyms / deprecated terms Completion Signals: Acceptance criteria testability Measurable Definition of Done style indicators Misc / Placeholders: TODO markers / unresolved decisions Ambiguous adjectives ("robust", "intuitive") lacking quantification For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless: Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally) 4. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints: Maximum of 5 total questions across the whole session. Each question must be answerable with EITHER: A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR A one word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in <=5 words"). Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation. Ensure category coverage balance: attempt to cover the highest impact unresolved categories first; avoid asking two low impact questions when a single high impact area (e.g., security posture) is unresolved. Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan level execution details (unless blocking correctness). Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests. If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact Uncertainty) heuristic. 5. Sequential questioning loop (interactive): Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time. Question writing quality (applies to every question, MC or short answer): Lead with Question: followed by a full interrogative that ends with ? . The question text before the ? must make sense on its own. NEVER use a topic label, section heading, or requirement id as the question itself. For example, Acceptance device/runtime matrix (FR 023) is INVALID — it is a label, not a question. After the ? , the only permitted suffix is an optional parenthesized requirement/question id. Exact format: Question: <interrogative ? or Question: <interrogative ? (FR 023) . Never put the id before the ? , and never use the id (alone or with a topic label) as the whole prompt. Immediately after the question line, add one plain language "Why it matters" sentence (the stake for acceptance or shipping) before the recommendation/options. Use everyday wording; introduce jargon only if defined in the same sentence. Self check: a reader who does not know Spec Kit must be able to answer from the Question line alone. Terse is fine; cryptic labels are not. For multiple‑choice questions: Analyze all options and determine the most suitable option based on: Best practices for the project type Common patterns in similar implementations Risk reduction (security, performance, maintainability) Alignment with any explicit project goals or constraints visible in the spec Present your recommended option prominently at the top with clear reasoning (1 2 sentences explaining why this is the best choice). Format as: Recommended: Option [X] <reasoning Then render all options as a Markdown table: <! markdownlint disable MD058 Option Description A <Option A description B <Option B description C <Option C description (add D/E as needed up to 5) Short Provide a different short answer (<=5 words) (Include only if free form alternative is appropriate) <! markdownlint enable MD058 After the table, add: You can reply with the option letter (e.g., "A"), accept the recommendation by saying "yes" or "recommended", or provide your own short answer. For short‑answer style (no meaningful discrete options): Provide your suggested answer based on best practices and context. Format as: Suggested: <your proposed answer <brief reasoning Then output: Format: Short answer (<=5 words). You can accept the suggestion by saying "yes" or "suggested", or provide your own answer. After the user answers: If the user replies with "yes", "recommended", or "suggested", use your previously stated recommendation/suggestion as the answer. Otherwise, validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint. If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance). Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question. Stop asking further questions when: All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR You reach 5 asked questions. Never reveal future queued questions in advance. If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities. 6. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach): Maintain in memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents. For the first integrated answer in this session: Ensure a Clarifications section exists (create it just after the highest level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing). Under it, create (if not present) a Session YYYY MM DD subheading for today. Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: Q: <question → A: <final answer . Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s): Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements. User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario. Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly. Non functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Success Criteria Measurable Outcomes (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target). Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it). Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding (formerly referred to as "X") once. If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text. Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite). Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact. Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift). 7. Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass): Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet p

speckit-clarify