القائمة
Use before any creative/design work (a feature, a package, an evolution) — explores intent and design via the spec-ladder with multi-peer adversarial review BEFORE implementation.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use when bringing the harness method to a NEW or non-sentropic repo — maps the repo's conventions into a harness profile so the same scope/branch/verify kernel applies anywhere.
Use on any bug, test failure, or unexpected behaviour BEFORE proposing a fix — runs the generic evidence-first root-cause loop.
Use when you have a spec/decisions and need an executable plan — writes a lot-based BRANCH.md from the template and completes with track for realization state.
Use when completing a feature, a design step, or before merging — runs a ≥2-peer consensus review and reconciles the findings, instead of a single rubber-stamp pass.
Use when adding or evolving tests for a feature/bugfix — applies the sentropic test-pyramid, scoped-test loop, environment isolation, and AI-flaky policy.
Load FIRST in any sentropic repo — establishes the harness method (branch/scope/test/debug/review/brainstorm/plan) and supersedes superpowers for those acts.
| name | brainstorm |
| description | Use before any creative/design work (a feature, a package, an evolution) — explores intent and design via the spec-ladder with multi-peer adversarial review BEFORE implementation. |
Native sentropic ideation. Stronger than a single-pass brainstorm: it climbs the spec-ladder and gates each design step with ≥2 independent adversarial peers and batched owner decisions.
Open the act: harness brainstorm "<topic>" [--peers <n>] [--ladder study|vol|evol] (records a WorkEvent).
Pick the rung that matches the uncertainty, write the artifact under spec/:
SPEC_STUDY_<TOPIC>.md) — open question, options, trade-offs. No commitment yet.SPEC_EVOL_<TOPIC>.md) — the committed design with numbered decisions (D1…Dn) ready to plan.Don't skip rungs for a genuinely open problem; don't over-ceremony a reversible one.
Before presenting decisions, get ≥2 independent reviews from distinct angles (e.g. Opus 4.8 + Codex 5.5-xhigh, or distinct lenses: correctness / risk / user-value). Reconcile divergences explicitly — a lone reviewer rationalises; a panel surfaces failure modes. Reversible calls: decide solo. Blocking / irreversible calls: escalate.
Present owner decisions as a clean full dossier (never a delta), THEN ask in lots of ≤4 questions. Each question carries its own context inline (source + stakes + consequence) — an id like "D5" alone carries no meaning. Once answered, treat all answers final; do re-examination in prose, don't re-poll.
A ladder artifact exists, peers reconciled, decisions captured. Hand off to harness/plan to turn the
EVOL decisions into BRANCH.md lots.