Create SKILL.md
New Skill: ambiguity-resolver
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
|
|||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
name: ambiguity-resolver
|
||||||
|
description: Structures vague opportunities and unclear briefs into actionable
|
||||||
|
one-page problem statements. Use when user has a vague brief, undefined problem,
|
||||||
|
unclear opportunity, or says "we need to figure out what to do about X", "can
|
||||||
|
you help me make sense of this", or "I've been asked to look into Y".
|
||||||
|
metadata:
|
||||||
|
author: Mohit Aggarwal
|
||||||
|
version: 1.0.0
|
||||||
|
category: discovery
|
||||||
|
tags: [discovery, strategy, problem-framing, ambiguity]
|
||||||
|
documentation: https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
# Ambiguity Resolver Skill
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Purpose
|
||||||
|
Turn vague briefs and half-formed opportunities into structured, actionable
|
||||||
|
problem statements — so you can reply with clarity instead of asking for three
|
||||||
|
more meetings.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Three-Stage Process
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Stage 1: Reframe
|
||||||
|
- Restate the vague input as 3-5 explicit questions that need answering
|
||||||
|
- Identify the unstated assumptions hidden in the brief
|
||||||
|
- Surface the real decision this feeds into (what will someone do differently
|
||||||
|
once this is resolved?)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Stage 2: Scope
|
||||||
|
- Define what is explicitly IN scope
|
||||||
|
- Define what is explicitly OUT of scope (equally important)
|
||||||
|
- Identify the deadline pressure: is this urgent/important, important/not urgent,
|
||||||
|
or unclear?
|
||||||
|
- Name who owns the final decision and who needs to be consulted
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Stage 3: Action
|
||||||
|
- Define the minimum viable research: 2-3 activities maximum that would give
|
||||||
|
enough signal to move forward with confidence
|
||||||
|
- Time estimate for each activity
|
||||||
|
- What each activity would tell you (and what it wouldn't)
|
||||||
|
- Proposed check-in point: when to regroup before committing to more
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Output Format
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Problem Brief: [Opportunity Area]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Restated as questions:**
|
||||||
|
1. [Question 1]
|
||||||
|
2. [Question 2]
|
||||||
|
3. [Question 3]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Unstated assumptions we should surface:**
|
||||||
|
- [Assumption 1]
|
||||||
|
- [Assumption 2]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**In scope:** [Clear boundary]
|
||||||
|
**Out of scope:** [Clear boundary]
|
||||||
|
**Decision owner:** [Name/role]
|
||||||
|
**Timeline:** [Real deadline if known, or "unclear — recommend setting one"]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Minimum viable research:**
|
||||||
|
| Activity | Time required | What it tells us |
|
||||||
|
|----------|--------------|------------------|
|
||||||
|
| [activity] | [time] | [insight] |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Proposed check-in:** After [activity], regroup to decide whether to proceed
|
||||||
|
or pivot.
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user