[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6GKJPWQQFGCFJD2XY3436GA":3,"skill-same:01M6GKJPWQQFGCFJD2XY3436GA":54},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":26,"linkOnly":27,"markdownContent":28,"markdownBody":29,"frontMatter":30,"refName":31,"commitSha":32,"skillDirectory":33,"forksCount":34,"repositoryHtmlUrl":35,"repositoryHomepageUrl":36,"ownerHtmlUrl":37,"ownerBlogUrl":38,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":39,"install":40,"resources":53},"01M6GKJPWQQFGCFJD2XY3436GA","clarify",null,"Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.","akka\u002Fai-marketplace","akka","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F1496237?v=4","01M6GKH3JJ5SR8SQ5BZRDFGZE2","Akka Project","01M6GKH3PK33JW3NNCJE2C1PZC",7,"Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fclarify\u002FSKILL.md",[],[5,19,20,21,22,23,24,25],"back","feature","questions","spec","up","encoding","feature spec","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: clarify\ndescription: \"Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.\"\n---\n\n## User Input\n\nYou **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).\n\n## Outline\n\nGoal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.\n\nNote: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking `\u002Fakka: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.\n\nExecution steps:\n\n1. Call the `akka_sdd_list_specs` MCP tool to find features. From the response, identify the target feature's directory (FEATURE_DIR) and spec file path (FEATURE_SPEC). If no features exist, instruct the user to run `\u002Fakka:specify` first.\n   - `FEATURE_DIR`\n   - `FEATURE_SPEC`\n   - (Optionally capture `IMPL_PLAN`, `TASKS` for future chained flows.)\n   - If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run `\u002Fakka:specify` or verify feature branch environment.\n\n2. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear \u002F Partial \u002F Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).\n\n   Functional Scope & Behavior:\n   - Core user goals & success criteria\n   - Explicit out-of-scope declarations\n   - User roles \u002F personas differentiation\n\n   Domain & Data Model:\n   - Entities, attributes, relationships\n   - Identity & uniqueness rules\n   - Lifecycle\u002Fstate transitions\n   - Data volume \u002F scale assumptions\n\n   Interaction & UX Flow:\n   - Critical user journeys \u002F sequences\n   - Error\u002Fempty\u002Floading states\n   - Accessibility or localization notes\n\n   Non-Functional Quality Attributes:\n   - Performance (latency, throughput targets)\n   - Scalability (horizontal\u002Fvertical, limits)\n   - Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)\n   - Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)\n   - Security & privacy (authN\u002FZ, data protection, threat assumptions)\n   - Compliance \u002F regulatory constraints (if any)\n\n   Integration & External Dependencies:\n   - External services\u002FAPIs and failure modes\n   - Data import\u002Fexport formats\n   - Protocol\u002Fversioning assumptions\n\n   Edge Cases & Failure Handling:\n   - Negative scenarios\n   - Rate limiting \u002F throttling\n   - Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits)\n\n   Constraints & Tradeoffs:\n   - Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting)\n   - Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives\n\n   Terminology & Consistency:\n   - Canonical glossary terms\n   - Avoided synonyms \u002F deprecated terms\n\n   Completion Signals:\n   - Acceptance criteria testability\n   - Measurable Definition of Done style indicators\n\n   Misc \u002F Placeholders:\n   - TODO markers \u002F unresolved decisions\n   - Ambiguous adjectives (\"robust\", \"intuitive\") lacking quantification\n\n   For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless:\n   - Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy\n   - Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally)\n\n3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:\n    - Maximum of 10 total questions across the whole session.\n    - Each question must be answerable with EITHER:\n       - A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR\n       - A one-word \u002F short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: \"Answer in \u003C=5 words\").\n    - Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.\n    - 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.\n    - Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).\n    - Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.\n    - If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.\n\n4. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):\n    - Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.\n    - For multiple‑choice questions:\n       - **Analyze all options** and determine the **most suitable option** based on:\n          - Best practices for the project type\n          - Common patterns in similar implementations\n          - Risk reduction (security, performance, maintainability)\n          - Alignment with any explicit project goals or constraints visible in the spec\n       - Present your **recommended option prominently** at the top with clear reasoning (1-2 sentences explaining why this is the best choice).\n       - Format as: `**Recommended:** Option [X] - \u003Creasoning>`\n       - Then render all options as a Markdown table:\n\n       | Option | Description |\n       |--------|-------------|\n       | A | \u003COption A description> |\n       | B | \u003COption B description> |\n       | C | \u003COption C description> (add D\u002FE as needed up to 5) |\n       | Short | Provide a different short answer (\u003C=5 words) (Include only if free-form alternative is appropriate) |\n\n       - After the table, add: `You can reply with the option letter (e.g., \"A\"), accept the recommendation by saying \"yes\" or \"recommended\", or provide your own short answer.`\n    - For short‑answer style (no meaningful discrete options):\n       - Provide your **suggested answer** based on best practices and context.\n       - Format as: `**Suggested:** \u003Cyour proposed answer> - \u003Cbrief reasoning>`\n       - Then output: `Format: Short answer (\u003C=5 words). You can accept the suggestion by saying \"yes\" or \"suggested\", or provide your own answer.`\n    - After the user answers:\n       - If the user replies with \"yes\", \"recommended\", or \"suggested\", use your previously stated recommendation\u002Fsuggestion as the answer.\n       - Otherwise, validate the answer maps to one option or fits the \u003C=5 word constraint.\n       - If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).\n       - Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.\n    - Stop asking further questions when:\n       - All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR\n       - User signals completion (\"done\", \"good\", \"no more\"), OR\n       - You reach 5 asked questions.\n    - Never reveal future queued questions in advance.\n    - If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.\n\n5. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):\n    - Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.\n    - For the first integrated answer in this session:\n       - Ensure a `## Clarifications` section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual\u002Foverview section per the spec template if missing).\n       - Under it, create (if not present) a `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` subheading for today.\n    - Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: `- Q: \u003Cquestion> → A: \u003Cfinal answer>`.\n    - Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):\n       - Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.\n       - User interaction \u002F actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.\n       - Data shape \u002F entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.\n       - Non-functional constraint → Add\u002Fmodify measurable criteria in Non-Functional \u002F Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).\n       - Edge case \u002F negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases \u002F Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).\n       - Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding `(formerly referred to as \"X\")` once.\n    - If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.\n    - Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).\n    - Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.\n    - Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift).\n\n6. Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass):\n   - Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet per accepted answer (no duplicates).\n   - Total asked (accepted) questions ≤ 5.\n   - Updated sections contain no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve.\n   - No contradictory earlier statement remains (scan for now-invalid alternative choices removed).\n   - Markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings: `## Clarifications`, `### Session YYYY-MM-DD`.\n   - Terminology consistency: same canonical term used across all updated sections.\n\n7. Write the updated spec back to `FEATURE_SPEC`.\n\n8. **Report existing diagrams.** If `FEATURE_DIR\u002Fspec-visualize.md` or `FEATURE_DIR\u002Fplan-visualize.md` exists, mention in the completion report that it may be stale and suggest running `\u002Fakka:visualize` for this feature when the user wants updated diagrams. Leave all diagram files untouched; visualization is optional.\n\n9. Report completion (after questioning loop ends or early termination):\n   - Number of questions asked & answered.\n   - Path to updated spec.\n   - Sections touched (list names).\n   - Potentially stale diagram paths and the optional `\u002Fakka:visualize` suggestion, if any were found in step 8.\n   - Coverage summary table listing each taxonomy category with Status: Resolved (was Partial\u002FMissing and addressed), Deferred (exceeds question quota or better suited for planning), Clear (already sufficient), Outstanding (still Partial\u002FMissing but low impact).\n   - If any Outstanding or Deferred remain, recommend whether to proceed to `\u002Fakka:plan` or run `\u002Fakka:clarify` again later post-plan.\n   - Suggested next command. If policy-decision markers remain, recommend `\u002Fakka:clarify` again, not `\u002Fakka:plan`.\n\nBehavior rules:\n\n- Policy-decision markers (thresholds, access permissions, retention, sensitive-data rules, approvals) are not subject to the specify marker limit: put them first in the question queue and never infer an answer. Any not reached within the 5-question limit stay as markers for the next run.\n- If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: \"No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification.\" and suggest proceeding.\n- If spec file missing, instruct user to run `\u002Fakka:specify` first (do not create a new spec here).\n- Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).\n- Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.\n- Respect user early termination signals (\"stop\", \"done\", \"proceed\").\n- If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.\n- If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.\n\nContext for prioritization: the user's request\n\n## Done When\n\n- [ ] The active FEATURE_DIR and FEATURE_SPEC were resolved via `akka_sdd_list_specs` (or the user was told to run `\u002Fakka:specify` first).\n- [ ] A structured ambiguity & coverage scan was performed across every taxonomy category with a Clear \u002F Partial \u002F Missing status.\n- [ ] No more than 5 questions were asked in total; each was answerable with a short multiple-choice selection or a `\u003C=5`-word short answer.\n- [ ] Each accepted answer produced exactly one bullet under `## Clarifications` → `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` and was integrated into the correct target section (Functional Requirements, User Stories, Data Model, Non-Functional \u002F Quality Attributes, Edge Cases, or terminology).\n- [ ] Any earlier statement invalidated by a clarification was replaced, not duplicated.\n- [ ] The spec file was saved to FEATURE_SPEC after each integration and passes validation (no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve; markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings added).\n- [ ] Existing diagrams affected by the source update were reported as potentially stale, with `\u002Fakka:visualize` suggested as an optional next step; all diagram files were left untouched.\n- [ ] The final report listed questions asked\u002Fanswered, sections touched, a coverage summary (Resolved \u002F Deferred \u002F Clear \u002F Outstanding), and the suggested next command.\n","## User Input\n\nYou **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).\n\n## Outline\n\nGoal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.\n\nNote: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking `\u002Fakka: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.\n\nExecution steps:\n\n1. Call the `akka_sdd_list_specs` MCP tool to find features. From the response, identify the target feature's directory (FEATURE_DIR) and spec file path (FEATURE_SPEC). If no features exist, instruct the user to run `\u002Fakka:specify` first.\n   - `FEATURE_DIR`\n   - `FEATURE_SPEC`\n   - (Optionally capture `IMPL_PLAN`, `TASKS` for future chained flows.)\n   - If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run `\u002Fakka:specify` or verify feature branch environment.\n\n2. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear \u002F Partial \u002F Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).\n\n   Functional Scope & Behavior:\n   - Core user goals & success criteria\n   - Explicit out-of-scope declarations\n   - User roles \u002F personas differentiation\n\n   Domain & Data Model:\n   - Entities, attributes, relationships\n   - Identity & uniqueness rules\n   - Lifecycle\u002Fstate transitions\n   - Data volume \u002F scale assumptions\n\n   Interaction & UX Flow:\n   - Critical user journeys \u002F sequences\n   - Error\u002Fempty\u002Floading states\n   - Accessibility or localization notes\n\n   Non-Functional Quality Attributes:\n   - Performance (latency, throughput targets)\n   - Scalability (horizontal\u002Fvertical, limits)\n   - Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)\n   - Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)\n   - Security & privacy (authN\u002FZ, data protection, threat assumptions)\n   - Compliance \u002F regulatory constraints (if any)\n\n   Integration & External Dependencies:\n   - External services\u002FAPIs and failure modes\n   - Data import\u002Fexport formats\n   - Protocol\u002Fversioning assumptions\n\n   Edge Cases & Failure Handling:\n   - Negative scenarios\n   - Rate limiting \u002F throttling\n   - Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits)\n\n   Constraints & Tradeoffs:\n   - Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting)\n   - Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives\n\n   Terminology & Consistency:\n   - Canonical glossary terms\n   - Avoided synonyms \u002F deprecated terms\n\n   Completion Signals:\n   - Acceptance criteria testability\n   - Measurable Definition of Done style indicators\n\n   Misc \u002F Placeholders:\n   - TODO markers \u002F unresolved decisions\n   - Ambiguous adjectives (\"robust\", \"intuitive\") lacking quantification\n\n   For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless:\n   - Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy\n   - Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally)\n\n3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:\n    - Maximum of 10 total questions across the whole session.\n    - Each question must be answerable with EITHER:\n       - A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR\n       - A one-word \u002F short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: \"Answer in \u003C=5 words\").\n    - Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.\n    - 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.\n    - Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).\n    - Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.\n    - If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.\n\n4. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):\n    - Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.\n    - For multiple‑choice questions:\n       - **Analyze all options** and determine the **most suitable option** based on:\n          - Best practices for the project type\n          - Common patterns in similar implementations\n          - Risk reduction (security, performance, maintainability)\n          - Alignment with any explicit project goals or constraints visible in the spec\n       - Present your **recommended option prominently** at the top with clear reasoning (1-2 sentences explaining why this is the best choice).\n       - Format as: `**Recommended:** Option [X] - \u003Creasoning>`\n       - Then render all options as a Markdown table:\n\n       | Option | Description |\n       |--------|-------------|\n       | A | \u003COption A description> |\n       | B | \u003COption B description> |\n       | C | \u003COption C description> (add D\u002FE as needed up to 5) |\n       | Short | Provide a different short answer (\u003C=5 words) (Include only if free-form alternative is appropriate) |\n\n       - After the table, add: `You can reply with the option letter (e.g., \"A\"), accept the recommendation by saying \"yes\" or \"recommended\", or provide your own short answer.`\n    - For short‑answer style (no meaningful discrete options):\n       - Provide your **suggested answer** based on best practices and context.\n       - Format as: `**Suggested:** \u003Cyour proposed answer> - \u003Cbrief reasoning>`\n       - Then output: `Format: Short answer (\u003C=5 words). You can accept the suggestion by saying \"yes\" or \"suggested\", or provide your own answer.`\n    - After the user answers:\n       - If the user replies with \"yes\", \"recommended\", or \"suggested\", use your previously stated recommendation\u002Fsuggestion as the answer.\n       - Otherwise, validate the answer maps to one option or fits the \u003C=5 word constraint.\n       - If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).\n       - Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.\n    - Stop asking further questions when:\n       - All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR\n       - User signals completion (\"done\", \"good\", \"no more\"), OR\n       - You reach 5 asked questions.\n    - Never reveal future queued questions in advance.\n    - If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.\n\n5. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):\n    - Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.\n    - For the first integrated answer in this session:\n       - Ensure a `## Clarifications` section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual\u002Foverview section per the spec template if missing).\n       - Under it, create (if not present) a `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` subheading for today.\n    - Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: `- Q: \u003Cquestion> → A: \u003Cfinal answer>`.\n    - Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):\n       - Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.\n       - User interaction \u002F actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.\n       - Data shape \u002F entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.\n       - Non-functional constraint → Add\u002Fmodify measurable criteria in Non-Functional \u002F Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).\n       - Edge case \u002F negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases \u002F Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).\n       - Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding `(formerly referred to as \"X\")` once.\n    - If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.\n    - Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).\n    - Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.\n    - Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift).\n\n6. Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass):\n   - Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet per accepted answer (no duplicates).\n   - Total asked (accepted) questions ≤ 5.\n   - Updated sections contain no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve.\n   - No contradictory earlier statement remains (scan for now-invalid alternative choices removed).\n   - Markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings: `## Clarifications`, `### Session YYYY-MM-DD`.\n   - Terminology consistency: same canonical term used across all updated sections.\n\n7. Write the updated spec back to `FEATURE_SPEC`.\n\n8. **Report existing diagrams.** If `FEATURE_DIR\u002Fspec-visualize.md` or `FEATURE_DIR\u002Fplan-visualize.md` exists, mention in the completion report that it may be stale and suggest running `\u002Fakka:visualize` for this feature when the user wants updated diagrams. Leave all diagram files untouched; visualization is optional.\n\n9. Report completion (after questioning loop ends or early termination):\n   - Number of questions asked & answered.\n   - Path to updated spec.\n   - Sections touched (list names).\n   - Potentially stale diagram paths and the optional `\u002Fakka:visualize` suggestion, if any were found in step 8.\n   - Coverage summary table listing each taxonomy category with Status: Resolved (was Partial\u002FMissing and addressed), Deferred (exceeds question quota or better suited for planning), Clear (already sufficient), Outstanding (still Partial\u002FMissing but low impact).\n   - If any Outstanding or Deferred remain, recommend whether to proceed to `\u002Fakka:plan` or run `\u002Fakka:clarify` again later post-plan.\n   - Suggested next command. If policy-decision markers remain, recommend `\u002Fakka:clarify` again, not `\u002Fakka:plan`.\n\nBehavior rules:\n\n- Policy-decision markers (thresholds, access permissions, retention, sensitive-data rules, approvals) are not subject to the specify marker limit: put them first in the question queue and never infer an answer. Any not reached within the 5-question limit stay as markers for the next run.\n- If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: \"No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification.\" and suggest proceeding.\n- If spec file missing, instruct user to run `\u002Fakka:specify` first (do not create a new spec here).\n- Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).\n- Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.\n- Respect user early termination signals (\"stop\", \"done\", \"proceed\").\n- If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.\n- If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.\n\nContext for prioritization: the user's request\n\n## Done When\n\n- [ ] The active FEATURE_DIR and FEATURE_SPEC were resolved via `akka_sdd_list_specs` (or the user was told to run `\u002Fakka:specify` first).\n- [ ] A structured ambiguity & coverage scan was performed across every taxonomy category with a Clear \u002F Partial \u002F Missing status.\n- [ ] No more than 5 questions were asked in total; each was answerable with a short multiple-choice selection or a `\u003C=5`-word short answer.\n- [ ] Each accepted answer produced exactly one bullet under `## Clarifications` → `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` and was integrated into the correct target section (Functional Requirements, User Stories, Data Model, Non-Functional \u002F Quality Attributes, Edge Cases, or terminology).\n- [ ] Any earlier statement invalidated by a clarification was replaced, not duplicated.\n- [ ] The spec file was saved to FEATURE_SPEC after each integration and passes validation (no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve; markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings added).\n- [ ] Existing diagrams affected by the source update were reported as potentially stale, with `\u002Fakka:visualize` suggested as an optional next step; all diagram files were left untouched.\n- [ ] The final report listed questions asked\u002Fanswered, sections touched, a coverage summary (Resolved \u002F Deferred \u002F Clear \u002F Outstanding), and the suggested next command.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","f8220c0cc101e52d76ec71bd7ce5176ba960c886","skills\u002Fclarify",3,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace","https:\u002F\u002Fdoc.akka.io","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka","https:\u002F\u002Fakka.io","2026-11-15 02:07:52",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":41,"prompt":51,"zipAvailable":52},[42,45,48],{"tool":43,"command":44},"npx","npx skills add akka\u002Fai-marketplace --skill clarify",{"tool":46,"command":47},"bunx","bunx skills add akka\u002Fai-marketplace --skill clarify",{"tool":49,"command":50},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add akka\u002Fai-marketplace --skill clarify","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fclarify\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[55,70,81,105,118,130],{"skillNo":56,"name":57,"nameZh":6,"description":58,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":59,"categories":60,"keywords":61,"publishedAt":26},"01M70VC27E4BQ8YW5M19R43XB5","visualize","Generate Mermaid diagrams for a feature from its spec.md (requirement-level views) and plan.md (technical component diagrams).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvisualize\u002FSKILL.md",[],[57,62,22,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,20],"diagrams","mermaid","generate","component","plan","mermaid diagrams","technical","for",{"skillNo":71,"name":72,"nameZh":6,"description":73,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":74,"categories":75,"keywords":76,"publishedAt":26},"01M6GKNPW7D72HYT0NQ095QFT4","tasks","Generate an actionable, dependency-ordered tasks.md for the feature based on available design artifacts.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftasks\u002FSKILL.md",[],[72,69,77,64,78,79,80,20],"dependency","artifacts","design","actionable",{"skillNo":82,"name":83,"nameZh":6,"description":84,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":85,"categories":86,"keywords":87,"publishedAt":26},"01M6GKNJJV6509SZXKB0Z02FC2","status","Show a read-only rollup of the definition of done — every exit condition with its state, properties, and open reason — without running any auditor.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstatus\u002FSKILL.md",[],[83,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104],"with","definition","reason","condition","running","rollup","read","properties","state","read-only","done","only","show","open","exit","definition of done","auditor",{"skillNo":106,"name":107,"nameZh":6,"description":108,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":109,"categories":110,"keywords":111,"publishedAt":26},"01M6GKNE1WXE2X3TVH9EYKFPKX","specify","Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fspecify\u002FSKILL.md",[],[107,112,113,114,115,20,116,117],"update","feature specification","create","specification","natural language","language",{"skillNo":119,"name":120,"nameZh":6,"description":121,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":122,"categories":123,"keywords":124,"publishedAt":26},"01M6GKN943T6RYZYHTBQ3M9NG0","ship","Run the auditors for every exit condition in scope for the requested ship target (review or release), and on pass run the ship steps the organization declared for that target.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fship\u002FSKILL.md",[],[120,125,69,126,102,127,128,129,91],"release","review","run","organization","scope",{"skillNo":131,"name":132,"nameZh":6,"description":133,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":134,"categories":135,"keywords":136,"publishedAt":26},"01M6GKN1TQR2ZKRF40YKGQ3MS7","setup","Set up a complete Akka SDK development environment from scratch. Installs Java, Maven, Akka CLI, configures tokens, scaffolds a project, and downloads context documentation. Idempotent — safe to rerun for repair\u002Fupgrade.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fakka\u002Fai-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsetup\u002FSKILL.md",[],[132,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,23,152,153,69,154,155,156],"development environment","java","tokens","complete","environment","development","maven","downloads","repair","From Scratch","context","safe","cli","documentation","upgrade","project","SET","rerun","idempotent","scaffolds"]