Identifies gaps in product specifications like spec.md and generates clarifying questions with concrete stakeholder options. Useful before implementation or for requirement validation.
From humaninloopnpx claudepluginhub deepeshbodh/human-in-loop --plugin humaninloopThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Searches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Searches prompts.chat for AI prompt templates by keyword or category, retrieves by ID with variable handling, and improves prompts via AI. Use for discovering or enhancing prompts.
Executes pre-written implementation plans: critically reviews, follows bite-sized steps exactly, runs verifications, tracks progress with checkpoints, uses git worktrees, stops on blockers.
Find gaps in specifications and generate clarifying questions that a product owner or stakeholder can answer. Focus on WHAT is missing, not HOW to implement.
humaninloop:authoring-requirements firstAsk product questions, not implementation questions.
| Wrong (Technical) | Right (Product) |
|---|---|
| "What happens if the database connection fails?" | "What should users see if the system is temporarily unavailable?" |
| "Should we use optimistic or pessimistic locking?" | "Can two users edit the same item simultaneously?" |
| "What's the retry policy for failed API calls?" | "How long should users wait before seeing an error?" |
| "What HTTP status code for invalid input?" | "What message should users see for invalid input?" |
Every question must be framed as a decision the stakeholder can make:
**Question**: [Clear product decision]
**Options**:
1. [Concrete choice] - [What this means for users]
2. [Concrete choice] - [What this means for users]
3. [Concrete choice] - [What this means for users]
**Why this matters**: [User or business impact]
Focus on these user-facing gaps:
| Category | Example Questions |
|---|---|
| User expectations | "What should users see when...?" |
| Business rules | "Is X allowed? Under what conditions?" |
| Scope boundaries | "Is Y in scope for this feature?" |
| Success/failure states | "What happens if the user...?" |
| Permissions | "Who can do X? Who cannot?" |
These are valid concerns but belong in the planning phase, not specification.
| Severity | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Cannot build without this answer | Must ask now |
| Important | Will cause rework if not clarified | Should ask now |
| Minor | Polish issue, can defer | Log and continue |
## Gaps Found
### Critical
- **Gap**: [What's missing]
- **Question**: [Product decision needed]
- **Options**: [2-3 choices]
### Important
- **Gap**: [What's missing]
- **Question**: [Product decision needed]
- **Options**: [2-3 choices]
### Minor (Deferred)
- [Gap description] - can be resolved during planning
Before finalizing the review, verify:
❌ "What retry policy should we use?" ✅ "How long should users wait before seeing an error?"
❌ "What about errors?" ✅ "What message should users see when payment fails?"
❌ "How should we handle this case?" ✅ "Options: (1) Show warning and continue, (2) Block action, (3) Ask for confirmation"
❌ Presenting 20+ gaps to stakeholders ✅ Limit to 5-7 critical/important gaps per review round
❌ Just listing the gap without context ✅ Explain user or business impact for each question
❌ "Should we cache this data?" (assumes caching) ✅ "How quickly should users see updated data?"
❌ Adding new features as "missing requirements" ✅ Only clarify scope of existing features
❌ Asking questions already answered elsewhere ✅ Reference existing patterns and decisions before asking