User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Outline

Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.

Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking /spec-kitty.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.

Execution steps:

Run spec-kitty agent feature check-prerequisites --json --paths-only from the repository root and parse JSON for:

• feature_dir

• Absolute path to feature directory (e.g., /path/to/kitty-specs/017-my-feature/ )

• FEATURE_SPEC

• Absolute path to spec.md file

• target_branch / base_branch (deterministic branch contract)

• If command fails or JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to run /spec-kitty.specify first or verify they are in a spec-kitty-initialized repository.

Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).

Functional Scope & Behavior:

• Core user goals & success criteria

• Explicit out-of-scope declarations

• User roles / personas differentiation

Domain & Data Model:

• Entities, attributes, relationships

• Identity & uniqueness rules

• Lifecycle/state transitions

• Data volume / scale assumptions

Interaction & UX Flow:

• Critical user journeys / sequences

• Error/empty/loading states

• Accessibility or localization notes

Non-Functional Quality Attributes:

• Performance (latency, throughput targets)

• Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits)

• Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)

• Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)

• Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions)

• Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any)

Integration & External Dependencies:

• External services/APIs and failure modes

• Data import/export formats

• Protocol/versioning assumptions

Edge Cases & Failure Handling:

• Negative scenarios

• Rate limiting / throttling

• Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits)

Constraints & Tradeoffs:

• Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting)

• Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives

Terminology & Consistency:

• Canonical glossary terms

• Avoided synonyms / deprecated terms

Completion Signals:

• Acceptance criteria testability

• Measurable Definition of Done style indicators

Misc / Placeholders:

• TODO markers / unresolved decisions

• Ambiguous adjectives ("robust", "intuitive") lacking quantification

For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless:

• Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy

• Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally)

Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:

• Maximum of 10 total questions across the whole session.

• Each question must be answerable with EITHER:

• A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR

• A one-word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in <=5 words").

• Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.

• 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.

• Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).

• Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.

• Scale thoroughness to the feature’s complexity: a lightweight enhancement may only need one or two confirmations, while multi-system efforts warrant the full question budget if gaps remain critical.

• If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.

Sequential questioning loop (interactive):

• Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.

• For multiple-choice questions, list options inline using letter prefixes rather than tables, e.g.

Options: (A) describe option A · (B) describe option B · (C) describe option C · (D) short custom answer (<=5 words)

Ask the user to reply with the letter (or short custom text when offered).

• For short-answer style (no meaningful discrete options), output a single line after the question: Format: Short answer (<=5 words) .

• After the user answers:

• Validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint.

• If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).

• Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.

• Stop asking further questions when:

• All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR

• User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR

• You reach 5 asked questions.

• Never reveal future queued questions in advance.

• If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.

Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):

• Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.

• For the first integrated answer in this session:

• Ensure a ## Clarifications section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing).

• Under it, create (if not present) a ### Session YYYY-MM-DD subheading for today.

• Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: - Q: <question> → A: <final answer> .

• Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):

• Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.

• User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.

• Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.

• Non-functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Non-Functional / Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).

• Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).

• Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding (formerly referred to as "X") once.

• If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.

• Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).

• Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.

• Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift).

Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass):

• Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet per accepted answer (no duplicates).

• Total asked (accepted) questions ≤ 5.

• Updated sections contain no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve.

• No contradictory earlier statement remains (scan for now-invalid alternative choices removed).

• Markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings: ## Clarifications , ### Session YYYY-MM-DD .

• Terminology consistency: same canonical term used across all updated sections.

Write the updated spec back to FEATURE_SPEC .

Report completion (after questioning loop ends or early termination):

• Number of questions asked & answered.

• Path to updated spec.

• Sections touched (list names).

• Coverage summary listing each taxonomy category with a status label (Resolved / Deferred / Clear / Outstanding). Present as plain text or bullet list, not a table.

• If any Outstanding or Deferred remain, recommend whether to proceed to /spec-kitty.plan or run /spec-kitty.clarify again later post-plan.

• Suggested next command.

Behavior rules:

• If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: "No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification." and suggest proceeding.

• If spec file missing, instruct user to run /spec-kitty.specify first (do not create a new spec here).

• Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).

• Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.

• Respect user early termination signals ("stop", "done", "proceed").

• If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.

• If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.

Context for prioritization: User arguments from $ARGUMENTS section above (if provided). Use these to focus clarification on specific areas of concern mentioned by the user.