/oma-brainstorm

name: oma-brainstorm
description: Explore goals, constraints, and alternative approaches before
  choosing a design. Use when the user requests ideation or design exploration.

Brainstorm - Design-First Ideation

Scheduling

Goal

Explore user intent, constraints, and alternative approaches before planning or implementation, then preserve an approved design for downstream planning.

Intent signature

• User says they have an idea, want to brainstorm, compare approaches, explore concepts, or design before planning.
• Request is ambiguous enough that implementation or task planning would be premature.

When to use

• Exploring a new feature idea before planning
• Understanding user intent and constraints before committing to an approach
• Comparing multiple design approaches with trade-offs
• When the user says "I have an idea" or "let's design something"
• Before invoking `/plan` for complex or ambiguous requests

When NOT to use

• Requirements are already clear and well-defined -> use `oma-pm` directly
• Implementing actual code -> delegate to specialized agents
• Performing code reviews -> use `oma-qa`
• Debugging existing issues -> use `oma-debug`

Expected inputs

• Early idea, ambiguous goal, product concept, design question, or set of constraints
• Existing project context when the idea must fit a codebase or product direction
• User preferences and approval gates

Expected outputs

• Clarified intent and constraints
• Viable approaches as prose briefs (scenario, mechanism, residual risk), with comparison and recommendation when alternatives aid the decision
• Section-by-section approved design document
• Blind-review issue list (Tier 1 resolved, Tier 2/3 resolved or explicitly deferred)
• Saved design artifact before handoff to planning

Dependencies

• Shared context loading, reasoning templates, clarification protocol, quality principles, and skill routing
• Optional `resources/triz-lite.md` for contradiction-shaped approach seeding
• Per-agent reviewer dispatch (e.g. `qa-reviewer`, `architecture-reviewer`) for the high-stakes blind-review escalation path
• Downstream PM workflow for task decomposition after design approval

Control-flow features

• Branches by ambiguity, user answers, approach comparison, and approval gates
• Optional TRIZ-lite branch when a technical/UX contradiction blocks distinct approaches
• Asks one question at a time
• Blind review round before save; may dispatch fresh-context reviewer subagents for high-stakes designs (the only subagent-spawning path in this skill)
• Stops before implementation or task planning

Structural Flow

Entry

1. Confirm that the request is exploratory rather than ready for implementation. 2. Load enough project context to understand constraints. 3. Start with intent and constraints, not solutions.

Scenes

1. **PREPARE**: Explore context and frame the design question. 2. **ACQUIRE**: Ask clarifying questions one at a time. 3. **REASON**: Compare viable approaches with tradeoffs when alternatives aid the decision; explain binding constraints when only one remains. 4. **VERIFY**: Reuse existing design authority and resolve only material open choices, then run a blind review round (independent lenses critique without seeing each other's feedback) before saving. 5. **FINALIZE**: Save design and transition to planning when appropriate.

Transitions

• If requirements become clear and implementation-ready, transition to PM planning.
• If user rejects an approach, revise before moving to detailed design.
• If implementation pressure appears early, defer it until design approval.
• If approaches collapse into knob-turning on one axis, load `resources/triz-lite.md` and reseed, then re-present prose briefs.

Failure and recovery

• If the user cannot answer a question, propose assumptions and ask for confirmation.
• If scope expands, split the design into smaller sections.
• If alternatives collapse into one option, identify the real constraint causing that; use TRIZ-lite only when that constraint is a technical/UX contradiction.

Exit

• Success: approved design exists and is ready for planning.
• Partial success: open questions and assumptions are explicit.

Logical Operations

Actions

| Action | SSL primitive | Evidence | |--------|---------------|----------| | Read context and idea | `READ` | User prompt and project context | | Ask targeted questions | `REQUEST` | Clarification phase | | Compare approaches | `COMPARE` | Tradeoff matrix | | Infer recommendation | `INFER` | Recommended option | | Record option selection | `CALL_TOOL` | Actual approach, comparison evidence, and design/option revision; matching `instanceId` and verifier `--instance` in an active OMA workflow | | Resolve design authority | `VALIDATE` | Existing instruction, delegated choice, or explicit answer for an unresolved material design choice | | Run blind review | `VALIDATE` | Independent lens critiques, tiered issue list, Tier 1 resolution | | Write design artifact | `WRITE` | `docs/decisions/` and a linked coordination summary | | Transition to plan | `NOTIFY` | Handoff summary |

Tools and instruments

• Context loading, reasoning templates, clarification protocol
• Optional TRIZ-lite resource for contradiction seeding
• Project memory for coordination summaries and `docs/decisions/` for retained approach proposals

Canonical workflow path

1. Ask one clarifying question at a time.
2. (Optional) If technical/UX contradiction or same-axis approaches only → resources/triz-lite.md.
3. Present viable alternatives as prose briefs and compare them when useful; do not invent extra options to meet a count; reuse an existing selection or delegated choice and resolve only an open material choice. In an active OMA workflow, record the actual approach, rationale, evidence, and design/option revision with `brainstorm.option-selection`; verify the matching --instance (workflow Step 3 owns the comma