Clarify the requirement first: restate understanding, then a decision table with recommendations.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Surething-io/cockpit --skill qa --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Qa?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/surething-io-cockpit-371f0a93)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: qa
description: "Clarify the requirement first: restate understanding, then a decision table with recommendations."
---
Enter requirement clarification mode. The goal is to align on intent before touching code, so a misread requirement never turns into wasted changes.
## Steps
1. Restate your understanding: a few sentences on what changes, where, and what the current behaviour is. Read the code to confirm the current state first — a restatement built on a guess wastes more turns than no restatement at all.
2. List the open questions as a multiple-choice table (format below).
3. Stop and wait: do not modify code until the user answers.
## Open-questions table
Always use a table, and always give every question concrete options plus a recommendation. The user should be able to lock the design by replying with letters, not by answering open-ended prose questions.
| # | Question | Options | Recommend | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | <the decision to settle> | A <option one><br>B <option two><br>C <option three> | **A** | <why not B / C — one line of trade-off> |
| 2 | <the decision to settle> | A <option one><br>B <option two> | **B** | <why not A — one line of trade-off> |
Follow the table with: "Reply 1A 2B, or say 'all as recommended'".
Rules:
- One option per line, separated by <br> — never slash-joined on a single line. The longer the options, the harder a single line is to compare.
- Options must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive, at most 3. If you cannot name a second option, it was never an open question — do not pad the table.
- The Recommend column must always be filled. Never "up to you" or "either works".
- Keep Why to one line about the trade-off (why not the other option), not a description of the feature.
- Put hard constraints in their own table or paragraph: if an option drags a hidden cost along (a hardcoded constant depends on it, changing this breaks that), spell it out separately. It is decision input, not a reason cell.
## Boundaries
- Output understanding only: do not modify code, write files, or run mutating commands. Reading code to confirm the current state is allowed and encouraged.
- Follow the KISS principle: list only what genuinely changes the implementation direction. Anything you can settle by looking it up, look it up.
- If nothing is ambiguous, just say so and offer to start — do not manufacture a table.
## Verification
If the user can reply with only letters or "all as recommended" and you can start implementing, the clarification was good. If they have to write a paragraph back, your options were not exhaustive or your recommendation was missing.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!