mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
83 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
83 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
# Ambiguity Resolver Skill
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
|
- **The vague brief or opportunity description** (even a single sentence is enough)
|
|
- **Who asked for this** (stakeholder context shapes the framing)
|
|
- **Known constraints** (timeline, budget, team size — if any are known)
|
|
|
|
## 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
|
|
|
|
**Validate** — Confirm every reframed question maps to at least one research activity. Verify scope boundaries are specific enough to say "no" to something concrete.
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### 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 | What it won't tell us |
|
|
|----------|--------------|------------------|-----------------------|
|
|
| [activity] | [time] | [insight] | [limitation] |
|
|
|
|
**Proposed check-in:** After [activity], regroup to decide whether to proceed or pivot.
|
|
|
|
## Example (Partial)
|
|
|
|
Input: *"We need to figure out what to do about our enterprise customers."*
|
|
|
|
**Restated as questions:**
|
|
1. Are enterprise customers churning, underperforming on expansion, or both?
|
|
2. Is this a product gap, a support/service gap, or a pricing/packaging issue?
|
|
3. What does "do something" look like — a new initiative, a policy change, or a resource shift?
|
|
|
|
**In scope:** Enterprise accounts ($50K+ ARR) showing declining health scores in the last two quarters
|
|
**Out of scope:** SMB segment, new enterprise acquisition strategy
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not reframe the brief into questions that are still too broad to research — each reframed question must be answerable by a specific activity
|
|
- [ ] Do not list a research activity without stating what it would tell you and what it would NOT tell you
|
|
- [ ] Do not leave the decision owner as "leadership" or "the team" — name a specific person or role
|
|
- [ ] Do not omit an explicit out-of-scope boundary — without it, scope will expand organically and the brief becomes meaningless
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Every reframed question is specific enough to research (not "how do we improve things?")
|
|
- [ ] Scope boundaries name something concrete that is excluded
|
|
- [ ] Research activities are achievable within the stated timeline
|
|
- [ ] Decision owner is identified (not "leadership" — a specific person or role)
|