A Claude Code plugin that sharpens vague planning intentions into clear Intent Cards through Socratic questioning.
- You describe a vague intention ("I want to add AI recommendations")
- The skill asks targeted Socratic questions (max 2 per round)
- A separate Clarity Judge agent scores your intent on 6 axes (0–100)
- Repeat until clarity reaches 80+ (default max 20 rounds, configurable)
- Output a structured Intent Card
Core principle: questions only, no answers. The skill sharpens intent (Why/What/Who), never implementation (How).
npx skills add cosmos-makers/intent-sharpening/intent-sharpening:intent-sharpening I want to build a team knowledge sharing tool
Or start without an argument to be prompted:
/intent-sharpening:intent-sharpening
Set max rounds with --rounds or just say it naturally:
/intent-sharpening:intent-sharpening --rounds 5 Build a dashboard
/intent-sharpening:intent-sharpening Build a dashboard, keep it to 3 rounds
| Axis | Max | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Target (Who) | 15 | Is the audience specified? |
| Motivation (Why) | 20 | Is there a grounded reason? |
| Deliverable (What) | 20 | Is a concrete output visible? |
| Scope | 15 | Are inclusions/exclusions clear? |
| Success Criteria | 15 | Is there a verifiable measure? |
| Risk / Constraints | 15 | Are key risks acknowledged? |
Total: 100 points. 80+ = clear enough to execute.
✅ Intent Sharpening Complete — 85/100 (3 rounds)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## Intent Card
**One-liner**: Reduce content page bounce rate by showing personalized related content recommendations
**Target (Who)**: Users landing on content detail pages from search/social
**Motivation (Why)**: 68% bounce rate on content pages; users leave without exploring
**Deliverable (What)**: "Related content" section at the bottom of content pages, personalized by viewing history
**Scope**: Content detail pages only; excludes feed, search results, and homepage
**Success Criteria**: Bounce rate drops from 68% to under 55% within 4 weeks
**Risk**: Cold-start problem for new users with no history → fallback to popularity-based recommendations
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Here's a real session sharpening the intent for a "team context mounting tool":
Click to expand — 5 rounds, 52 → 78 points
> /intent-sharpening:intent-sharpening
I want to provide a tool for agent users to mount and unmount team contexts.
🪨 Intent Sharpening — Start
Raw input: "I want to provide a tool for agent users to mount and unmount team contexts."
Round 1 — First cut
Why do you need this? What's the problem without team context mount/unmount?
What is "team context" exactly? Without it, what specifically can't users do?
> 1. Team context is shared team memory — it contains everything a new member
> needs: task owners, specs, glossary, code repo locations, wiki links.
> It's a folder of markdown files.
> 2. Anyone can mount a team context so their agent can leverage team knowledge.
> 3. Without it, users have to search and explore information from scratch every time.
📊 Round 1 Clarity Score: 52/100
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ Who 10/15 "Agent users" — new hires? veterans? too broad
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ Why 14/20 Reduce search cost — no quantitative evidence
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░ What 12/20 Mount/unmount tool — unclear what changes after mounting
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░ Scope 8/15 Components mentioned — boundaries undefined
▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░ Measure 4/15 No success criteria
▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░ Risk 4/15 Almost no risk awareness
Weakest: Measure, Risk
Round 2 — Keep sharpening
How will you know this succeeded? Like "an agent with team context mounted
can do X" — what's the X?
What happens when a context goes stale? If an agent uses outdated info,
whose problem is that?
> Success means: users ask their agent about team concepts and the agent
> finds answers from team context, or even without explicit questions,
> the agent pulls team knowledge when needed during work.
>
> Stale contexts are a sync problem. I think we should compare the latest
> commit head of the team context repo when it's loaded. (I'm thinking
> repo-based management since this needs to be shared across people.)
📊 Round 2 Clarity Score: 72/100
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ Who 11/15
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ Why 16/20
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ What 15/20
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ Scope 9/15
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ Measure 12/15
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ Risk 9/15
Weakest: Scope
... (rounds 3–4 continue sharpening Scope and Risk) ...
📊 Round 5 (Final) Clarity Score: 78/100
✅ Intent Sharpening Complete — 78/100 (5 rounds)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## Intent Card
**One-liner**: A tool that lets agent users mount/unmount shared team knowledge
so agents can perform team-specific work immediately.
**Target (Who)**: Organization members using AI agents (enterprise/team/squad scope)
**Motivation (Why)**: Without team context, users waste time searching for info
every time. Mounting gives agents instant access to team knowledge (owners, specs,
glossary, repo locations, wiki links).
**Deliverable (What)**:
- Mount / unmount / list commands
- Edit team context → push to shared repo
- Sync check via repo commit head comparison
- Agents use team knowledge even without explicit questions
**Scope**:
- Sharing scopes: enterprise / team / squad
- Multiple contexts mountable simultaneously (typically one)
- Includes editing + push; repo-based management
- Permissions follow repo access; PR requirement configurable per repo
**Success Criteria**: Teams create their own contexts; users freely mount/unmount
their team's and other squads' contexts to enrich agent conversations.
**Risk**:
- Sync drift → commit head comparison
- Bad edits propagating → PR workflow + repo version control rollback
- Permissions → repo-level access control
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚠️ Still weak:
- Measure: vivid success image but no quantitative metrics
- Risk: security-sensitive content, large context performance, onboarding friction unaddressed
MIT