Wiht the West hand, I think that I would start with 1
♣ and then, over 1
♠, rebid 2
♣. Certainly I could have a lot less and bid that way, and I also would like to have a sixth club to bid that way. But stiff kings are not necessarily worth a lot in the play, so I think I would just trust that if we belong in game partner will probably take another call over my 2
♣.
Now to the East hand, after 1
♣-1
♠-2
♥. I think that, with anyone I have discussed reverses, 2
♠ is forcing, shows 5+, and is non-committal about strength. This has 6, a very good 6, and a lot of strength. I guess I would try 3
♠ but I can't say I have ever discussed it. I would be a little worried that the hand belongs in 6
♣.My club holding is just three spots but on the auction partner could well have AKQxx and maybe AKQxxx. Of course, afaik after partner bids 2
♥, the hands do not seem to be fitting all that well.
So: After 1
♣-1
♠-2
♥-3
♠ I think opener would expect that I, the responder, am showing good values and good spades. That seems clear enough. Whether we can then get to 6
♣ when it is right, or stay out of 6
♠ when it is wrong, is less clear to me. (No slam is right with the actual hands). I, if I were West, would have a somewhat stronger hand to bid 2
♥ and then a slam might be right. Or not.
I regard the hands as difficult to bid, unless it goes 1
♣-1
♠-2
♣-3
♠(invit)-4
♠. But E/W should start by getting it straight whether, for them, 2
♠ is or is not passable. Probably they have already agreed with that part of the assessment.
Added: Another issue for agreement: Perhaps after 1
♣-1
♠-2
♣ you see the East hand as worth a force to game. Not unreasonable. In that case, I would bid 2
♦ over 2
♣, and then bid 3
♠ at my next turn. This, imo, shows the same general sort of hand as the immediate 3
♠ over 2
♣ except that the immediate call is invitational while going through 2
♦ first is forcing.
Partly the OP was trapped by lack of agreements, common when playing on bbo.