accessibility
FreeEnsure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Ask the minimum clarifying questions before implementation when requirements are ambiguous or missing crucial details
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Identify which aspects are unclear or missing:
Do NOT ask about things you can determine by reading existing code and conventions.
Categorize each candidate question:
| Type | Ask or Decide? |
|---|---|
| Scope boundary (what to include) | Ask |
| Non-functional requirement (perf/security target) | Ask |
| Acceptance criteria | Ask |
| Implementation approach | Decide yourself |
| Code style / naming | Decide yourself (follow existing patterns) |
| Nice-to-have polish | Decide yourself (proceed with sensible default) |
For each blocking question:
Format:
I'll [proceed with X default assumption]. Quick questions before I start:
1. [Specific question]? (default: [assumption])
2. [Specific question]? (default: [assumption])
</execution_process>
<best_practices>
</best_practices> </instructions>
<examples> <usage_example> **Example — Underspecified feature request:**User: "Add a search feature to the dashboard"
Good response:
I'll implement client-side search with debouncing and case-insensitive matching. Quick questions before I start:
1. Should search cover all columns or just the name/title column? (default: name/title only)
2. Should results filter in place or open in a new panel? (default: filter in place)
Bad response:
Before I start, I need to know:
1. What search algorithm should I use?
2. Should it be case sensitive?
3. What debounce delay?
4. Should I use a library?
5. How many results to show?
</usage_example> </examples>
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Asking 5+ questions before starting | Paralyzes user; feels like interrogation | Triage to max 3 blocking questions; decide the rest |
| Asking about implementation approach | That is the agent's job, not the user's | Ask about scope/constraints/acceptance criteria only |
| Questions without defaults | User must think from scratch; slower feedback loop | Always state: "default: X — correct?" |
| Sequential questioning (one at a time) | Creates a slow back-and-forth waterfall | Batch all questions into one message |
| Asking things visible in the codebase | Shows insufficient research effort | Read existing conventions before asking |
Before starting:
cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
After completing:
.claude/context/memory/learnings.md.claude/context/memory/issues.md.claude/context/memory/decisions.mdASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.