/brainstorming

name: brainstorming
description: "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

| 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 {