| name | brainstorm |
| description | Divergent discovery BEFORE planning: turn a fuzzy ask into 2–4 scoped options + named unknowns, pick a
direction, hand to spec-planning. Bounded; converges to explicit choices, never guesses.
Trigger phrases: "brainstorm", "explore options", "not sure what we want", "help me scope", "ideate"
|
Brainstorm — diverge before you converge
When
The ask is under-defined: the goal, the users, or the shape of the solution aren't clear yet, so jumping
straight to spec-planning would just plan the wrong thing. This is the front-end of planning, not a
replacement — brainstorm diverges (widens the option space), spec-planning converges (breaks the chosen
option into tasks). If scope is already clear, skip this and go straight to [[spec-planning]].
The loop
- Frame the real problem — restate the request as the underlying need in one sentence ("the user wants
X so that Y"). Separate the stated solution from the goal; often the solution is negotiable, the goal isn't.
- Diverge — generate distinct directions. Produce 2–4 genuinely different approaches, not variations
of one. For each: the core idea, who it serves, the main trade-off. Include a deliberately cheap/minimal
option (fight gold-plating early).
- Surface the unknowns — list assumptions and open questions that would change the answer. Mark which are
blocking (must resolve before planning) vs. deferrable.
- Converge — ask, don't guess. Present the directions as explicit numbered options and let the user
choose (CLAUDE.md discipline: a decision point = multiple choice, never a prose either/or). Record the
chosen direction + the rejected ones with the one-line reason they lost.
- Hand off. The chosen direction + resolved constraints flow into
spec-planning; a lasting
architectural choice made here is recorded with [[adr]].
Guardrails
- Bounded, not open-ended. Divergence has a stop: 2–4 options, then converge. Endless ideation with no
decision is the failure mode, not thoroughness.
- No premature convergence either. Don't collapse to the first idea to look decisive — the point is that
the option space was actually explored before a direction was picked.
- Evidence over invention. Read the existing code/data and state assumptions explicitly; a plausible guess
presented as fact is worse than a named unknown.
- Token discipline ([[token-budget]]): the options + the decision are a short summary to the main thread;
push a long exploration to
docs/DISCOVERY.md and return the option headings + the choice.
DoD (this skill's contribution)
- The real goal is stated separately from the requested solution.
- 2–4 distinct directions exist, each with its trade-off, including a minimal option.
- Blocking unknowns are named and were asked as explicit options — nothing ambiguous was filled by guessing.
- A direction is chosen and ready to enter [[spec-planning]] (rejected options logged with their reason).
