Imported from HarleyBartles/agent-asset-marketplace (codex-marketplace/plugins/superpowers-plus/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add HarleyBartles/agent-asset-marketplace --skill brainstorming. Copyright stays with the author (MIT).

Provenance

This marketplace-maintained derivative is based on obra/superpowers v6.3.0 commit b36e0829c6d0140e93cfef2ca599b1b07d4a7797 under the MIT License. Upstream source is not vendored; this directory contains the maintained Superpowers+ implementation.

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, and make the smallest decision record that protects the consequential choices. The ceremony scales with uncertainty and consequence; approval is not a universal ritual.

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:

• Spike — a feasibility question ("can we...", "is it possible...", "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, 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.
• Bounded — a well-scoped change to code that already exists in 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). If the task is authorized and the design contains no unresolved human-owned choice, proceed through the normal implementation workflow; otherwise stop for the specific decision. No spec file, no implementation plan document.
• Architectural — new projects, new subsystems, changes that 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.

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.

Tiny bounded sketch

When the human asks only for one implementation approach to a fully specified, local, reversible change, answer with the smallest useful design: name the technical assumption, the proposed edit, and the focused proof. Do not inspect the repository unless the assumption cannot be stated from supplied context, and do not invent an approval pause when no human-owned choice remains.

Anti-Pattern: "Too Simple To Need A Design"

Every path must expose the assumptions that could change the outcome. A todo list, a single-function utility, or a config change may need only a two-sentence decision record. Approval is reserved for unresolved human-owned choices and architectural designs; clear, already-authorized bounded work does not need a ceremonial pause.

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. Investigate — as cheaply as correctness allows
4. 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. Resolve the gate if needed — stop only for a human-owned decision or unresolved consequential choice
5. Implement — proceed with the normal development workflow (TDD applies); no plan document

Architectural:

1. Load baseline and local guide — read this skill's baseline (references/design-baseline.md) and the repo's .agents/runbooks/design.md before executing the stage checklist.
2. Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
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 .agents/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md and commit
7. Spec self-review & readiness gate — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, and scope; then use a reviewer subagent or handoff-gates spec-readiness lane. Rate the spec (8/10 floor, 9/10 target) and report the rating in the current handoff without persisting it.
8. User reviews written spec — ask the user to review the spec and current rating 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];
    "Investigate; report recommendation" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Explore project context" [shape=box];
    "Scope too large for one spec?" [shape=diamond];
    "Invoke writing-roadmaps" [shape=doublecircle];
    "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 &\nreadiness gate" [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"];
    "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" -> "Present short design in chat";
    "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" -> "Investigate; report recommendation" [label="spike"];
    "Present short design in chat" -> "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [label="bounded: authorized/no human-owned choice"];
    "Hidden complexity? Upgrade path" -> "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural";

    "Explore project context" -> "Scope too large for one spec?";
    "Scope too large for one spec?" -> "Invoke writing-roadmaps" [label="yes"];
    "Scope too large for one spec?" -> "Ask clarifying questions" [label="no"];
    "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
    "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
    "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
    "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
    "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
    "Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review &\nreadiness gate";
    "Spec self-review &\nreadiness gate" -> "Spec self-review &\nreadiness gate" [label="fix inline"];
    "Spec self-review &\nreadiness gate" -> "User reviews spec?" [label="meets floor"];
    "User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
    "User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"];
}

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 the short design is settled and no human-owned choice remains, 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 after presenting the probe and reporting its recommendation). 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, stop and invoke writing-roadmaps to build a sequenced roadmap and write Plan 1. Do not brainstorm the whole epic in one pass or continue with detailed design questions until Plan 1 is approved.
• 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
• If a single missing fact blocks the next step, invoke asking-clarifying-questions before guessing.
• 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 .agents/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-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 <path>. 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.

Implementation:

• Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
• Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.