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

Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).

• 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.

Output Structure

Problem Brief: [Opportunity Area]

Restated as questions:

1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]
3. [Question 3]

Unstated assumptions we should surface:

• [Assumption 1]
• [Assumption 2]

In scope: [Clear boundary] Out of scope: [Clear boundary] Decision owner: [Name/role] Timeline: [Real deadline if known, or "unclear — recommend setting one"]

Minimum viable research:

Proposed check-in: After [activity], regroup to decide whether to proceed or pivot.

Example (Partial)

Input: "We need to figure out what to do about our enterprise customers."

Restated as questions:

1. Are enterprise customers churning, underperforming on expansion, or both?
2. Is this a product gap, a support/service gap, or a pricing/packaging issue?
3. What does "do something" look like — a new initiative, a policy change, or a resource shift?

In scope: Enterprise accounts ($50K+ ARR) showing declining health scores in the last two quarters Out of scope: SMB segment, new enterprise acquisition strategy

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not reframe the brief into questions that are still too broad to research — each reframed question must be answerable by a specific activity
• [ ] Do not list a research activity without stating what it would tell you and what it would NOT tell you
• [ ] Do not leave the decision owner as "leadership" or "the team" — name a specific person or role
• [ ] Do not omit an explicit out-of-scope boundary — without it, scope will expand organically and the brief becomes meaningless

Quality Checks

• [ ] Every reframed question is specific enough to research (not "how do we improve things?")
• [ ] Scope boundaries name something concrete that is excluded
• [ ] Research activities are achievable within the stated timeline
• [ ] Decision owner is identified (not "leadership" — a specific person or role)

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Clarify a vague brief."
• "Frame an undefined problem."
• "Make sense of an unclear opportunity."
• "We need to figure out what to do about X."
• "I've been asked to look into Y."