brainstorming Checked
Installation
Copy the prompt below and send it to your AI assistant (e.g. Claude Code) — it will follow the instructions and install automatically.
Install the "brainstorming" skill by following the instructions at https://skill123.me/install/brainstorming.
Run in your terminal — downloads and installs to ~/.claude/skills/.
curl -fsSL https://skill123.me/install/brainstorming.sh | bash
Download the zip and extract it into your skills directory (e.g. ~/.claude/skills/), then restart your session.
⬇ Download v1.0.5bf4e78 · 30 KBNot live-tested yet — this skill is rated on static analysis only.
About this skill
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before 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, present a
design, and get your human partner's approval.
<HARD-GATE>
Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any
project, or take any implementation action until you have told your
human partner what you intend and they have approved it. This applies
to EVERY task on EVERY path below — the ceremony scales with the task;
the approval gate never does.
</HARD-GATE>
Documentation
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before 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, present a
design, and get your human partner's approval.
<HARD-GATE>
Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any
project, or take any implementation action until you have told your
human partner what you intend and they have approved it. This applies
to EVERY task on EVERY path below — the ceremony scales with the task;
the approval gate never does.
</HARD-GATE>
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, 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.
- **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), 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.
- **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.
Anti-Pattern: "Too Simple To Need Approval"
Every path ends with your human partner approving your intent before
implementation. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config
change — the design may be two sentences in chat, but you MUST present
it and get approval. "Simple" tasks are where unexamined assumptions
cause the most wasted work. What scales with simplicity is the
artifact, never the approval.
Red Flags
View full documentation
| Thought | Reality |
|---------|---------|
| "This is too simple to need a design" | Simple means a short design, not no design. Two sentences in chat, then approval. |
| "I'll call it bounded and skip the spec" | Reaching for a label to skip work IS the doubt — take the heavier path. |
| "It's bounded and the design is obvious — I'll start while they read it" | The gate is the approval, not the design's length. Present, then stop until you hear yes. |
| "I understand this kind of app, so it's bounded" | Bounded measures the repo, not your familiarity. A new project has no existing flow — it is architectural. |
| "The spike works, so I'll keep the code" | A spike's output is an answer. Keeping the code is a new request — classify it. |
| "It grew, but I'm almost done — no need to re-classify" | Hidden complexity upgrades the path mid-task. Stop and say so. |
| "They approved the spike, so the follow-up change is approved too" | Each task gets its own classification and its own approval. |
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-<topic>-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"];
"Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" -> "Human approves?";
"Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" -> "Present short design in chat";
"Present short design in chat" -> "Human approves?";
"Human approves?" -> "Investigate; report recommendation" [label="spike: yes"];
"Human approves?" -> "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [label="bounded: yes"];
"Hidden complexity? Upgrade path" -> "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural";
"Explore project context" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
"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\n(fix inline)";
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
"User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
"User reviews spec?" -
Score breakdown
Assessment methodology
Version history
— Refreshed from GitHub obra/superpowers@5bf4e78
Imported from obra/superpowers@main