Structure vague opportunities and unclear briefs into actionable one-page problem statements.
SkillScore73Maintained
Automatic
◆Product Management pack
Last verified 8/14/2026
What it changes
Passed 16 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 22 without it.
Without skill55%
With skill73%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The research plan is formatted as a 4-column markdown table.
The research plan includes no more than 3 research activities.
The research plan contains a maximum of 3 research activities.
and 4 more in the full report
6 fixed10 passed either way4 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+18 pp
Tokens
+28%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-13%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/14/2026v116 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 6
Prompt
Our VP of Product asked us to 'do something about flat AI feature adoption.' We have two developers and about three weeks to figure this out. I need you to turn this vague request into a structured problem brief. Reframe the issue into specific researchable questions, call out hidden assumptions, set clear in-scope and out-of-scope boundaries, identify the decision owner, and propose a concise research plan detailing duration, expected insights, limitations, and a check-in point.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The research plan is formatted as a markdown table with columns for activity, time required, expected insights, and limitations.
Missed
Passed
The research plan contains a maximum of 3 research activities.
Passed
Passed
case-01 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/14/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md82 linessingle file
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.