音频诊断
- 作者仓库星标 38
- 许可证 MIT
- 作者更新于 实时读取
- 作者仓库 builder-skills
- 领域
- 设计与多媒体
- 兼容 Agent
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- 信任分
- 94 / 100 · 已通过审计
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @kazdenc · MIT
- Token 消耗评级
- 低消耗
- 接入复杂程度
- 即装即用
- 是否需要外部 API Key
- 不需要
- 兼容的系统
- 未声明(默认跨平台)
- 底层运行要求
- 无特殊要求
- 文件与系统权限
-
- 只读
- 允许写入 / 修改
- 网络行为
- 仅限本地
- 安装命令数
- 26 条
档案由构建时根据 SKILL.md 与安装命令自动衍生,可能与作者实际意图存在差异。
需要注意: 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: 设计与多媒体
runtime: 无特殊运行时
---
# clarify 输出预览
## PART A: 任务判断
- 适用问题:视觉内容、演示材料、信息图或设计交付。
- 输入要求:目标材料、限制条件、期望输出和验收方式。
- 证据边界:围绕“Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically”读取原文规则,不把推断写成作者承诺。
## PART B: 执行结果
- **01** 任务判断:确认你的需求是否属于视觉内容、演示材料、信息图或设计交付,并标出输入、限制和预期结果。
- **02** 执行计划:优先按“Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically”拆成步骤,说明每一步会读取什么、修改什么、产出什么。
- **03** 交付结果:给出可复制的命令、文件改动、检查清单或内容草稿,并说明如何继续迭代。
- **04** 风险边界:结合 读取文件、写入/修改文件、主要在本地完成、通常不需要额外 API Key 给出执行前确认项。
## Running Rules
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件;主要在本地完成;通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先小样例验证,再放大到真实任务。
- 交付时同时给结果、检查口径和下一步迭代建议。 原文没有稳定的斜杠命令要求。安装验证后通常全局生效,直接在对话里点名这个 Skill 并描述任务即可。
告诉 Agent 目标文件或材料、期望结果、不可改范围、是否允许联网或执行命令。本 Skill 的权限画像是:读取文件、写入/修改文件。
先用一个小任务确认它会围绕“Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically”工作;涉及文件或命令时,先看 diff、日志、预览或测试结果。
检查最终产物是否包含明确结果、必要证据和下一步动作;如果输出泛泛而谈,就补充输入、边界和验收标准后重跑。
---
name: clarify
description: Improve unclear UX copy, error messages, microcopy, labels, and instructions. Use when user says…
category: 设计与多媒体
source: kazdenc/builder-skills
---
# clarify
## 什么时候使用
- 把设计与视觉方向的常用动作沉淀成 Agent 可调用的技能 适合处理界面、视觉、封面、信息图或演示材料交付,核心价值是把输入、判断、执行、验证和交付边界固定下来,避免 Agent 泛泛回答。 把任务拆成可执行、可检查、可继续迭代的步骤…
- 面向视觉内容、演示材料、信息图或设计交付,优先处理能明确输入、步骤和验收标准的工作。
## 需要提供什么
- 目标材料、目录范围、期望结果和不可改动内容。
- 是否允许联网、执行命令、读写文件或调用外部服务。
## 执行规则
- 围绕「Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically」组织步骤,不把推断写成作者事实。
- 读取文件、写入/修改文件;主要在本地完成;通常不需要额外 API Key。
- 先跑小样例,确认结果可检查后再扩大任务范围。
## 输出要求
- 给出最终产物、关键证据、验证方式和下一步动作。
- 信息不足时标记 unknown,不编造命令、平台或依赖。 作者原文负责流程事实;仓库文件负责来源和命令;流狐只补充适用场景、限制和质量判断。
skill "clarify" {
输入层 -> 用户目标 + 目标文件 + 禁止范围 + 验收标准
上下文层 -> Assess Current Copy / Plan Copy Improvements / Improve Copy Systematically
规则层 -> SKILL.md 触发条件 / 执行顺序 / 输出格式
运行层 -> 无特殊运行时 | 读取文件、写入/修改文件 | 主要在本地完成
安全层 -> 通常不需要额外 API Key + 小任务验证 + diff / 日志复核
输出层 -> 可复制结果 + 检查清单 + 下一步迭代
} 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.
先判断是否适合
作者设计意图
作者的方法与取舍
边界和复核