Use during devflow TASK-01 requirement clarification before design or implementation. Explores user intent, requirements, constraints, and success criteria.
Use during devflow TASK-01 requirement clarification before design or implementation. Explores user intent, requirements, constraints, and success criteria.
Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
DevFlow Override
When this skill is invoked by $devflow-codex for TASK-01 requirement clarification:
Save the clarified requirement report to {artifacts_dir}/01-requirement/requirement-report.md.
Do not save to docs/superpowers/specs/ unless the user explicitly asks for a standalone superpowers spec.
Do not commit the requirement report.
Do not invoke writing-plans; TASK-02 architect writes 02-design/tech-design.md and 02-design/execution-plan.md.
The report must include: AI codebase/context analysis, clarification Q&A, accepted scope, excluded scope, success criteria, risks, and open questions.
After the report is written and the user has approved the clarified requirement, update workflow-state.json with TASK-01_completed and route to architect.
In devflow mode, medium/large TASK-01 must not be completed automatically.
Even when the initial request appears complete, ask the user to confirm the
clarified scope, success criteria, and exclusions before writing
TASK-01_completed.
Do not use "no additional clarification needed" as a reason to skip user
confirmation. If there is no obvious ambiguity, ask a confirmation question
instead of continuing automatically.
In devflow mode, this override supersedes the default sections below that require writing to docs/superpowers/specs/, committing, running the spec review loop, or invoking writing-plans.
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.
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.
Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
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.
Checklist
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
Offer visual companion (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below.
Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
Write design doc — save to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md and commit
Spec review loop — dispatch spec-document-reviewer subagent with precisely crafted review context (never your session history); fix issues and re-dispatch until approved (max 3 iterations, then surface to human)
User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
The Process
Understanding the idea:
Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
Exploring approaches:
Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
Lead with your recommended option and explain why
Presenting the design:
Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
Design for isolation and clarity:
Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.
Working in existing codebases:
Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
After the Design
Documentation:
Write the validated design (spec) to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
(User preferences for spec location override this default)
Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
Commit the design document to git
Spec Review Loop:
After writing the spec document:
Dispatch spec-document-reviewer subagent (see spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md)
If Issues Found: fix, re-dispatch, repeat until Approved
If loop exceeds 3 iterations, surface to human for guidance
User Review Gate:
After the spec review loop 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. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.
Implementation:
Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
Key Principles
One question at a time - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
Multiple choice preferred - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
Explore alternatives - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
Incremental validation - Present design, get approval before moving on
Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
Visual Companion
A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.
Offering the companion: When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
"Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)"
This offer MUST be its own message. Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.
Per-question decision: Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?
Use the browser for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
Use the terminal for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions
A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.
If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:
visual-companion.md
