clarify

A command that finds unclear or missing decisions in a feature specification by asking up to five focused questions and recording the answers in the specification.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for checking a feature specification before running a planning step and updating the spec with the user's clarifications.
Why use it?
It reduces ambiguity before planning begins, which can prevent misunderstandings and rework during implementation.

Command for Claude Code

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/knitli/codeweaver/clarify
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/knitli/codeweaver

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,045 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 81% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.02045
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.01022
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00409
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00204

Measured yesterday against content hash b2ef10a23077, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

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 yesterday.

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.

Origin

This is a copy

81% identical to speckit.clarify — 100 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

.claude/commands/clarify.md · 166 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.


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

The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you MUST consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).

User input:

$ARGUMENTS

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 /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 /specify or verify feature branch environment.
  2. 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)
  3. 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.

Read the full file on GitHub · 166 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 166 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b2ef10a23077

Subscribe to this mod's changes

clarify is a command published in the GitHub repository knitli/codeweaver (12 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,045 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to speckit.clarify, differing in 100 lines, and is treated as a copy.