clarify
- Repo stars 38
- License MIT
- Author updated Live
- Author repo builder-skills
- Domain
- Design
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 94 / 100 · audit passed
- Author / version / license
- @kazdenc · MIT
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: clarify
description: Improve unclear UX copy, error messages, microcopy, labels, and instructions. Use when user says…
category: design
runtime: no special runtime
---
# clarify output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Improve unclear UX copy, error messages, microcopy, labels, and instructions. Use when user says "fix the copy", "unclear text", "confusing labels", "improve error messages", "better microcopy", "rewrite this text", or when interface text is hard to understand..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Improve unclear UX copy, error messages, microcopy, labels, and instructions. Use when user says "fix the copy", "unclear text", "confusing labels", "improve error messages", "better microcopy", "rewrite this text", or when interface text is hard to understand.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: clarify
description: Improve unclear UX copy, error messages, microcopy, labels, and instructions. Use when user says…
category: design
source: kazdenc/builder-skills
---
# clarify
## When to use
- Improve unclear UX copy, error messages, microcopy, labels, and instructions. Use when user says "fix the copy", "uncl…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "clarify" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Identify and improve unclear, confusing, or poorly written interface text to make the product easier to understand and use.
Assess Current Copy
Identify what makes the text unclear or ineffective:
Find clarity problems:
- Jargon: Technical terms users won't understand
- Ambiguity: Multiple interpretations possible
- Passive voice: "Your file has been uploaded" vs "We uploaded your file"
- Length: Too wordy or too terse
- Assumptions: Assuming user knowledge they don't have
- Missing context: Users don't know what to do or why
- Tone mismatch: Too formal, too casual, or inappropriate for situation
Understand the context:
- Who's the audience? (Technical? General? First-time users?)
- What's the user's mental state? (Stressed during error? Confident during success?)
- What's the action? (What do we want users to do?)
- What's the constraint? (Character limits? Space limitations?)
CRITICAL: Clear copy helps users succeed. Unclear copy creates frustration, errors, and support tickets.
Plan Copy Improvements
Create a strategy for clearer communication:
- Primary message: What's the ONE thing users need to know?
- Action needed: What should users do next (if anything)?
- Tone: How should this feel? (Helpful? Apologetic? Encouraging?)
- Constraints: Length limits, brand voice, localization considerations
IMPORTANT: Good UX writing is invisible. Users should understand immediately without noticing the words.
Improve Copy Systematically
Refine text across these common areas:
Error Messages
Bad: "Error 403: Forbidden" Good: "You don't have permission to view this page. Contact your admin for access."
Bad: "Invalid input" Good: "Email addresses need an @ symbol. Try: name@example.com"
Principles:
- Explain what went wrong in plain language
- Suggest how to fix it
- Don't blame the user
- Include examples when helpful
- Link to help/support if applicable
Form Labels & Instructions
Bad: "DOB (MM/DD/YYYY)" Good: "Date of birth" (with placeholder showing format)
Bad: "Enter value here" Good: "Your email address" or "Company name"
Principles:
- Use clear, specific labels (not generic placeholders)
- Show format expectations with examples
- Explain why you're asking (when not obvious)
- Put instructions before the field, not after
- Keep required field indicators clear
Button & CTA Text
Bad: "Click here" | "Submit" | "OK" Good: "Create account" | "Save changes" | "Got it, thanks"
Principles:
- Describe the action specifically
- Use active voice (verb + noun)
- Match user's mental model
- Be specific ("Save" is better than "OK")
Help Text & Tooltips
Bad: "This is the username field" Good: "Choose a username. You can change this later in Settings."
Principles:
- Add value (don't just repeat the label)
- Answer the implicit question ("What is this?" or "Why do you need this?")
- Keep it brief but complete
- Link to detailed docs if needed
Empty States
Bad: "No items" Good: "No projects yet. Create your first project to get started."
Principles:
- Explain why it's empty (if not obvious)
- Show next action clearly
- Make it welcoming, not dead-end
Success Messages
Bad: "Success" Good: "Settings saved! Your changes will take effect immediately."
Principles:
- Confirm what happened
- Explain what happens next (if relevant)
- Be brief but complete
- Match the user's emotional moment (celebrate big wins)
Loading States
Bad: "Loading..." (for 30+ seconds) Good: "Analyzing your data... this usually takes 30-60 seconds"
Principles:
- Set expectations (how long?)
- Explain what's happening (when it's not obvious)
- Show progress when possible
- Offer escape hatch if appropriate ("Cancel")
Confirmation Dialogs
Bad: "Are you sure?" Good: "Delete 'Project Alpha'? This can't be undone."
Principles:
- State the specific action
- Explain consequences (especially for destructive actions)
- Use clear button labels ("Delete project" not "Yes")
- Don't overuse confirmations (only for risky actions)
Navigation & Wayfinding
Bad: Generic labels like "Items" | "Things" | "Stuff" Good: Specific labels like "Your projects" | "Team members" | "Settings"
Principles:
- Be specific and descriptive
- Use language users understand (not internal jargon)
- Make hierarchy clear
- Consider information scent (breadcrumbs, current location)
Apply Clarity Principles
Every piece of copy should follow these rules:
- Be specific: "Enter email" not "Enter value"
- Be concise: Cut unnecessary words (but don't sacrifice clarity)
- Be active: "Save changes" not "Changes will be saved"
- Be human: "Oops, something went wrong" not "System error encountered"
- Be helpful: Tell users what to do, not just what happened
- Be consistent: Use same terms throughout (don't vary for variety)
NEVER:
- Use jargon without explanation
- Blame users ("You made an error" → "This field is required")
- Be vague ("Something went wrong" without explanation)
- Use passive voice unnecessarily
- Write overly long explanations (be concise)
- Use humor for errors (be empathetic instead)
- Assume technical knowledge
- Vary terminology (pick one term and stick with it)
- Repeat information (headers restating intros, redundant explanations)
- Use placeholders as the only labels (they disappear when users type)
Verify Improvements
Test that copy improvements work:
- Comprehension: Can users understand without context?
- Actionability: Do users know what to do next?
- Brevity: Is it as short as possible while remaining clear?
- Consistency: Does it match terminology elsewhere?
- Tone: Is it appropriate for the situation?
Remember: You're a clarity expert with excellent communication skills. Write like you're explaining to a smart friend who's unfamiliar with the product. Be clear, be helpful, be human.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review