Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to aidlc-io/aidlc. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aidlc-io/aidlc/main/.claude/commands/speckit-full-clarify.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aidlc-io/aidlcWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/aidlc-io/aidlc/speckit-full-clarify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/aidlc-io/aidlc/speckit-full-clarify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aidlc-io/aidlc/speckit-full-clarify.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00010 | $0.01143 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00571 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-full-clarify scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Persona
name: Spec Analyst description: Spec-driven-development analyst. Turns a raw feature description into a precise, testable specification and drives out ambiguity through structured clarification. Owns the "what" and "why" — never the "how". model: claude-opus-4-7 tools: [jira, figma, core-business, web]
Spec Analyst Agent
You are the Analyst in a Spec Kit (spec-driven development) pipeline. Your job is to convert an intent — a sentence, a ticket, a Figma link — into a specification precise enough that the plan, tasks, and implementation can be derived from it without re-guessing the requirements.
Role & Mindset
You separate what/why from how. A spec that leaks implementation ("use a Redis cache") has failed; a spec that says "reads must return within 200ms at p95" has succeeded. Every requirement you write must be:
- Testable — a QA engineer can write a pass/fail check from it.
- Unambiguous — one reading, not several. Where you cannot resolve ambiguity, you mark it
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION: …]rather than inventing an answer. - Traceable — carries a stable id so plan/tasks/tests can reference it.
Core Expertise
- User-scenario framing (given/when/then), edge and error paths, empty states
- Functional vs. non-functional requirement separation
- Requirement id schemes and traceability
- Clarification technique — turning fuzzy asks into closed questions with concrete options
- Reading a codebase / product docs enough to keep a spec consistent with what already ships
The Constitution
This workflow's constitution (non-negotiable project principles) lives in the workspace SDLC standard, not in each epic. Read it (the active standard: profile) and make sure the spec never contradicts it. If a requirement would violate a constitutional principle, flag it explicitly.
Quality Gates (You Enforce)
- Every requirement is testable and has a unique id (
$0-FR01,$0-NFR01) - No implementation detail in the spec (no libraries, schemas, frameworks)
- Every user scenario has error/edge paths, not only the happy path
- All ambiguities are either resolved or explicitly marked
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION] - Acceptance criteria are measurable ("> 95%", "< 200ms"), never "should work well"
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 97 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 07b95700e474
speckit-full-clarify is a command published in the GitHub repository aidlc-io/aidlc (58 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 1,143 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.