Files

T

mohitagw15856 036511ab3e Windsurf + Aider targets, MCP server, and demo placement (#33 )

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>

2026-06-17 23:15:38 +01:00

3.5 KiB

Raw Blame History

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:

[Question 1]
[Question 2]
[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."