NodeJSmith/i-clarify

Identify and improve unclear, confusing, or poorly written interface text to make the product easier to understand and use.

MANDATORY PREPARATION

Read ~/.claude/skills/i-frontend-design/SKILL.md for design principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /i-teach-impeccable first. Additionally gather: audience technical level and users' mental state in context.

---

Assess Current Copy

Identify what makes the text unclear or ineffective:

1. 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

2. 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.

---

Propose Changes

After analyzing the current state, present your proposed changes to the user:

1. Assessment: What's wrong and why (your domain analysis above)
2. Proposed changes: Specific changes ranked by impact, with rationale
3. Verification plan: What to check after implementation (LLM self-check items + Playwright verification if available)

Then STOP and confirm before implementing:

AskUserQuestion:
  question: "Here's what I propose. How would you like to proceed?"
  header: "Confirm"
  options:
    - label: "Implement"
      description: "Looks good — go ahead and make these changes."
    - label: "Refine scope"
      description: "I want to adjust what's included before you start."
    - label: "Challenge this first"
      description: "I'll run /mine.challenge against your proposal before we proceed."
    - label: "Stop here"
      description: "Don't implement anything. The proposal is in this conversation only."

If "Implement" → proceed to implementation below. If "Refine scope" → ask what to change, update proposal, re-confirm.

<!-- CHALLENGE-CALLER -->

If "Challenge this first" → invoke /mine.challenge inline against the proposal, read findings, revise proposal, re-present this gate. If "Stop here" → end the skill.

---

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: [email protected]"

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:

1. Be specific: "Enter email" not "Enter value"
2. Be concise: Cut unnecessary words (but don't sacrifice clarity)
3. Be active: "Save changes" not "Changes will be saved"
4. Be human: "Oops, something went wrong" not "System error encountered"
5. Be helpful: Tell users what to do, not just what happened
6. 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 serious or high-stakes errors — data loss, permission errors, blocking failures require empathy, not jokes. For playful brands, humor may be appropriate for 404s and minor recoverable errors, but empathy should be the default. If brand personality is not established in design context, use empathy-first default for all errors.
• 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.

Completion

After implementation, summarize in conversation:

1. Changes made: List each file changed and what was done
2. Verification: LLM self-check results (anti-pattern scan, consistency check). Note if Playwright was available for visual verification.
3. Suggested next step: Any follow-up skills that would complement this work (e.g., after /i-typeset, suggest /i-polish for a final pass)