prompt-evaluation-runn…
Use when evaluating prompts, LLM outputs, red-team suites, or model behavior with local eval configs and safe provider/cost controls.
Use when starting any creative work — creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior — before any implementation begins.
$ npx -y skills add yeaight7/agent-powerups --skill brainstorming --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/brainstormingContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Use when starting any creative work — creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior — before any implementation begins.
name: brainstorming description: "Use when starting any creative work — creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior — before any implementation begins."
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
<HARD-GATE> Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity. </HARD-GATE>
Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits 2. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria 3. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation 4. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section 5. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit 6. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope 7. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding 8. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
graph TD
Explore["Explore project context"]
Ask["Ask clarifying questions"]
Propose["Propose 2-3 approaches"]
Present["Present design sections"]
ApproveDesign{"User approves design?"}
WriteDoc["Write design doc"]
SpecReview["Spec self-review<br/>(fix inline)"]
ReviewSpec{"User reviews spec?"}
InvokePlans((("Invoke writing-plans skill")))
Explore --> Ask
Ask --> Propose
Propose --> Present
Present --> ApproveDesign
ApproveDesign -->|"no, revise"| Present
ApproveDesign -->|"yes"| WriteDoc
WriteDoc --> SpecReview
SpecReview --> ReviewSpec
ReviewSpec -->|"changes requested"| WriteDoc
ReviewSpec -->|"approved"| InvokePlans**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke any other implementation skill directly. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
**Understanding the idea:**
**Exploring approaches:**
**Presenting the design:**
**Design for isolation and clarity:**
**Documentation:**
**Spec Self-Review:** After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:
1. **Placeholder scan:** Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections? Fix them. 2. **Internal consistency:** Do any sections contradict each other? 3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan? 4. **Ambiguity check:** Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways?
**User Review Gate:** After the spec review 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. Only proceed once the user approves.
**Implementation:**
Curated power-ups for coding agents: skills, slash commands, MCP configs, hooks, AGENTS.md templates, and workflows for serious software engineering. Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity CLI, Cursor and more
Repo: yeaight7/agent-powerups
Use when evaluating prompts, LLM outputs, red-team suites, or model behavior with local eval configs and safe provider/cost controls.
Use when creating or reviewing red-team eval plugins, attack templates, grader rubrics, safety fixtures, or model-risk test metadata.
Use when designing, running, debugging, or hardening deterministic eval suites for agent skills, prompts, tool workflows, or MCP-backed cases.
Use when designing tool definitions for a new agent or subagent, an agent shows high retry rates, ambiguous tool invocations, or silent failures, or an…
Use when routing a prompt to a local provider CLI for a second opinion, review, or plan -- you are about to call a provider directly, need the response saved…
Use when starting work in an unfamiliar area of a codebase, spawning a subagent that needs targeted file context, a first search pass missed the relevant file,…