Skip to content
Back to skills

Clarify Demand

ASecurity

Conversational demand clarification and feasibility research before formal work item registration

  • 8 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 4 views
  • Added May 26, 2026
ai-agentsgo

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 27, 2026

npx -y skills add hardness1020/VibeFlow --skill clarify-demand --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Clarify Demand?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Clarify Demand
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/hardness1020-clarify-demand/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hardness1020-clarify-demand)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: clarify-demand
description: Conversational demand clarification and feasibility research before formal work item registration
metadata:
  triggers:
    - intake
    - new idea
    - I want to build
    - explore feasibility
    - should I build
    - assess feature
    - pre-register
---

# clarify-demand

Conversational demand clarification and feasibility research before formal work item registration.

## Purpose

This skill helps users go from a vague idea to a concrete work item registration. It runs **before** `/manage-work register` to ensure the right track, scope, and description are chosen.

Works on any branch (including `main`).

## 4-Phase Workflow

### Phase 1: Demand Clarification

Ask the user to clarify the following (skip items they've already provided):

1. **Problem** — What problem are you solving? What's broken or missing?
2. **Users** — Who benefits from this? (end users, developers, ops, etc.)
3. **Done Criteria** — How will you know it's done? What does success look like?
4. **Constraints** — Any technical, time, or compatibility constraints?
5. **Scope Signal** — Is this a bug fix, a single feature, a multi-component change, or a system-level change?

Keep the conversation natural. Ask follow-up questions if answers are vague. One or two rounds is usually enough.

### Phase 2: Feasibility Research

Perform read-only codebase analysis:

- Does existing code support this, or is new infrastructure needed?
- What files/modules would be affected?
- Are there existing patterns to follow?
- What are the risks (high coupling, missing tests, architectural debt)?

**Skip this phase** for obvious Micro/Small items where the scope is clear and the change is localized.

### Phase 3: Synthesis

Produce an **Intake Brief** (displayed in conversation, not persisted to disk):

```
## Intake Brief

**Problem**: [1-2 sentences]
**Users**: [who benefits]
**Feasibility**: [summary from Phase 2, or "Skipped — scope is clear"]
**Complexity**: [Low / Medium / High]
**Recommended Track**: [Micro / Small / Medium / Large]
**Rationale**: [why this track]
**Suggested Description**: "<description for register command>"
**Suggested ID**: <numeric ID>
```

### Phase 4: Handoff

Present the Intake Brief to the user. If they confirm:

```
/manage-work register "<description>" <ID> <track>
```

If they want changes, loop back to the relevant phase.

## Guidelines

- **Ephemeral output**: The Intake Brief lives in the conversation only — no files are written.
- **Bias toward smaller tracks**: When in doubt, recommend Small over Medium. Users can always upgrade.
- **Don't over-research**: Phase 2 should take 1-2 minutes, not 10. Quick scan, not deep dive.
- **Natural language**: This is a conversation, not a form. Adapt to the user's communication style.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.