brainstorming skill

Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs

Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.

Start by classifying how much process the request needs, then work through your path: understand the context, refine the idea, present a design, and get your human partner's approval.

Establish Shared Understanding

The outcome of brainstorming is an understanding your human partner can recognize and correct, grounded in what they want to accomplish.

the intended outcome, who it is for, and what success looks like. When that information is missing, ask one focused question about purpose or intended use before proposing features or an approach. Knowing the app genre does not tell you why your partner wants it. Gathering missing requirements does not ask them to authorize the task again.

1. Discover intent. Use the request and available context to identify

relevant constraints, and success criteria in a short note your partner can assess. Separate what they said from assumptions. Invite correction and incorporate their answer before treating this as the design brief.

1. Write back your understanding. Summarize the intended outcome,

the selected path's design artifact: the written spec for architectural work, or the in-chat design/probe for bounded work and spikes. Check proposed features and technical choices against that understanding.

1. Carry intent into the design. Preserve the agreed understanding in

When the request already supplies the purpose and constraints, reflect that understanding instead of asking the same questions again. Keep the note concise; its accuracy and the opportunity to correct it matter.

Before taking any implementation action, including invoking an implementation skill, writing product code, scaffolding, installing product dependencies, or creating an external project, complete the selected path's prerequisites:

then reviews the written implementation plan and selects its execution method. Conversational design approval only permits writing the spec; written-spec approval only permits invoking writing-plans.

• Spike: the human partner approves the question and probe.
• Bounded: the human partner approves the short in-chat design.
• Architectural: the human partner reviews and approves the written spec,

A reply approves the stage actually presented. Approval of an idea or feature scope does not approve artifacts that do not exist yet. Resume at the earliest incomplete stage; do not turn one approval into permission to skip the rest of the selected path. Read-only project exploration is allowed while those prerequisites remain incomplete.

Three Paths

Before your first question, classify the request and say the classification out loud — "this looks bounded, so I'll present a short design here rather than write a spec" — so your human partner can override it:

"quick and dirty is fine") whose output is an answer, not code you keep. Present the question and what you'll try in 2-3 sentences, get a nod, then find out as cheaply as correctness allows. No design doc, no spec file. Report findings as a recommendation; anything you built stays labeled throwaway.

• Spike — a feasibility question ("can we...", "is it possible...",

this repo: a new flag, a small endpoint, a one-file fix. Understanding the kind of app is not enough — bounded means the flow you are changing is already here to read. If there is no existing flow to change, the task is not bounded. Ask the clarifying questions that matter, present a short design IN CHAT (a few sentences to a few short paragraphs), and STOP. Implementation starts only after your human partner says yes to that design — a bounded task's approval is as hard a gate as an architectural one. No spec file, no implementation plan document.

• Bounded — a well-scoped change to code that already exists in

restructure how components fit together or alter interfaces others depend on. Follow the full process: questions, approaches, sectioned design, written spec, then the writing-plans skill.

• Architectural — new projects, new subsystems, changes that

When in doubt between two paths, take the heavier one. The ratchet is one-way: hidden complexity discovered mid-task upgrades the path — stop, say so, and step up. Nothing downgrades mid-task.

Anti-Pattern: "Too Simple To Need Approval"

Every path ends with your human partner approving the required design before implementation. A bounded change may need only two sentences in chat. A new todo-list project is architectural and requires the written spec and planning handoffs. Scale the artifact to the selected path; complete that path's reviews before implementation.

Red Flags

Checklist

Classify first, announce the path, then create a task for each item on your path and complete them in order.

Spike:

1. Explore project context — enough to frame the probe
2. Present question + probe plan — 2-3 sentences
3. Get approval — a nod is enough
4. Investigate — as cheaply as correctness allows
5. Report findings — a recommendation; label anything built as throwaway

Bounded:

1. Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
2. Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, the ones that matter
3. Present short design in chat — approach, files touched, testing
4. Get approval — STOP and wait for an explicit yes; presenting the design and starting in the same breath is skipping the gate
5. Implement — proceed with the normal development workflow (TDD applies); no plan document

Architectural:

1. Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
2. Offer the visual companion just-in-time — NOT upfront. The first time a question would genuinely be clearer shown than described, offer it then (its own message); on approval its browser tab opens for you. If no visual question ever arises, never offer it. See the Visual Companion section below.
3. Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
4. Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
5. Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
6. Write design doc — save to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md and commit
7. Spec self-review — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
8. User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
9. Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan

Process Flow

digraph brainstorming {
    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" [shape=diamond];
    "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" [shape=box];
    "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" [shape=box];
    "Present short design in chat" [shape=box];
    "Human approves?" [shape=diamond];
    "Investigate; report recommendation" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Explore project context" [shape=box];
    "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
    "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
    "Present design sections" [shape=box];
    "User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
    "Write design doc" [shape=box];
    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
    "User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
    "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Hidden complexity? Upgrade path" [shape=box];

    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" [label="spike"];
    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" [label="bounded"];
    "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Explore project context" [label="architectural"];
   

Terminal states are path-bound. Architectural: the ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans — never frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. Bounded: after approval, implementation proceeds directly through the normal development workflow; no plan document. Spike: the terminal state is a reported recommendation.

The Process

The subsections below serve the bounded and architectural paths (a spike stops at "present the probe, get a nod"). Sections from Exploring approaches onward are architectural-path depth — for bounded work, context plus a few questions plus a short in-chat design is the whole process.

Understanding the idea:

• Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
• Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
• If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
• For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
• Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
• Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
• Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria

Exploring approaches:

• Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
• Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
• Lead with your recommended option and explain why
• YAGNI ruthlessly - remove unnecessary features from every approach and design

Presenting the design:

• Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
• Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
• Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
• Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
• Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense

Design for isolation and clarity:

• Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
• For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
• Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
• Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.

Working in existing codebases:

• Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
• Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
• Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.

After the Design (architectural path)

Documentation:

• Write the validated design (spec) to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md
• (User preferences for spec location override this default)
• Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
• Commit the design document to git

Spec Self-Review: After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:

1. Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
2. Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
3. Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
4. Ambiguity check: Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.

Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.

User Review Gate: After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:

"Spec written and committed to . Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."

Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.