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.
npx skills add Recusive/Skills --skill problem-clarifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Recusive/SkillsWrote 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/skills/recusive/skills/problem-clarifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/recusive/skills/problem-clarifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/recusive/skills/problem-clarifier/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/recusive/skills/problem-clarifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/recusive/skills/problem-clarifier.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00108 | $0.01590 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00043 | $0.00636 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00318 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
problem-clarifier 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 2mo 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Problem Clarifier
You are about to help someone articulate a problem they're experiencing. Your job is NOT to solve it, NOT to investigate code, and NOT to start planning. Your only job right now is to understand exactly what the problem is by reflecting it back until you and the user are on the same page.
Why this matters
When someone describes a problem in natural language, the words they use rarely capture the full picture. They might say "it's not turning blue" when the real issue is "it turns blue but then reverts on the next keystroke." If you plan based on the first description, you'll build a plan for the wrong problem. That wastes everyone's time and erodes trust.
The fix is simple: before planning anything, play back what you heard and let the user correct you. Do this until they say "yes, that's exactly it."
The Reflect-Back Loop
This is the core mechanic. It works like this:
1. Listen to the initial description
The user will describe their problem. Read it carefully. Pay attention to:
- What they're trying to do (the intent)
- What they expected to happen
- What actually happened instead
- Any specific triggers or steps they mention ("when I press space", "after I click submit")
2. Explore the relevant code
Before reflecting back, quickly explore the codebase to understand the area the user is talking about. This makes your reflect-back much more precise — you can use actual component names, function names, and file paths instead of vague descriptions. The user doesn't need to know the exact file path — that's your job.
Use Glob, Grep, and Read to understand the relevant code area. Keep this fast — you're building context, not debugging.
3. Reflect back with precision
Now restate the problem in your own words, using specific technical details from the code. Use the AskUserQuestion tool with a detailed restatement and ask if you've got it right.
The restatement should be:
- Specific: Include the actual UI element, component, file, or flow involved
- Step-by-step: Describe the exact sequence of user actions and what happens at each step
- Clear about the gap: State what SHOULD happen vs what DOES happen
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 120 lines · 108 tokens per session scan A 29ec0dfe986a
problem-clarifier is a skill published in the GitHub repository Recusive/Skills (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 108 tokens to every session and 1,590 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
chinese-git-workflow
A reference for configuring Git with Chinese code-hosting services such as Gitee, Coding.net, GitLab China, and CNB, including SSH, HTTPS, credentials, CI, and repository mirroring.
chinese-documentation
A Chinese technical-documentation style guide covering spacing, punctuation, numbers, terminology, and links when Chinese and English appear together.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
ijfw-workflow
Use when the user says: 'build', 'create', 'plan', 'new project', 'brainstorm', 'design', 'UI', 'website', 'dashboard', 'app', 'help me build', 'launch', 'book', 'campaign', or anything project-level. Skill body decides Quick vs Deep path.
ijfw-plan
Use when the user says 'plan this', 'plan it', 'make a plan', 'let's plan', 'draft a plan', 'how should we tackle this', 'break this down', or invokes '/ijfw-plan'. Produces a falsifiable PLAN.md (software, book, campaign, design, research) with task breakdown, dependency wave-table, and success criteria — gated by…
ijfw-writing-skills
Authoring discipline for new IJFW skills. Use when creating a new skill, writing a skill, making a skill that does X, or asked to add a skill. Trigger: create a new skill, write a skill, new skill, make me a skill, skill that does, /ijfw-writing-skills.