| name | brainstorming |
| description | Structured Socratic questioning for exploring ideas and solutions. Use when exploring new features, evaluating approaches, or thinking through complex decisions. DO NOT USE FOR: architecture evaluation or SOLID analysis (use software-architecture), UI component design (use frontend-design), or coordinating implementation lanes (use parallel-execution). |
Brainstorming Skill
Guide for structured exploration of ideas through Socratic questioning.
When to Use
- Exploring new feature ideas or requirements
- Evaluating multiple solution approaches
- Challenging assumptions about a problem
- Breaking down complex decisions
- Early-stage design discussions
Socratic Questioning Framework
1. Clarifying Questions
- What do you mean by...?
- What is the core problem we're solving?
- Can you give an example?
- What would success look like?
2. Probing Assumptions
- What are we assuming here?
- Why do we believe this is true?
- What if the opposite were true?
- What are we taking for granted?
3. Exploring Perspectives
- How would [stakeholder] view this?
- What would a user expect?
- What would a skeptic say?
- How have others solved similar problems?
4. Examining Evidence
- What evidence supports this approach?
- Are there counter-examples?
- What data would change our mind?
- How confident are we in this?
5. Considering Consequences
- What happens if we do this?
- What are the second-order effects?
- What could go wrong?
- What's the cost of being wrong?
6. Questioning the Question
- Is this the right question to ask?
- What question should we be asking instead?
- Are we solving the right problem?
Brainstorming Session Structure
1. DEFINE (5 min)
- State the problem/opportunity clearly
- Identify constraints and goals
2. DIVERGE (15 min)
- Generate many ideas without judgment
- Build on each other's ideas
- Encourage wild ideas
3. CHALLENGE (10 min)
- Apply Socratic questions to top ideas
- Identify hidden assumptions
- Explore edge cases
4. CONVERGE (10 min)
- Evaluate ideas against criteria
- Combine complementary approaches
- Select promising directions
5. NEXT STEPS (5 min)
- Define concrete actions
- Assign owners and timelines
Project-Specific Context
[CUSTOMIZE] Add domain-specific questions relevant to your project:
- Industry-specific considerations
- Technical constraints unique to your stack
- Stakeholder perspectives to consider
- Common assumptions in your domain
Output Artifacts
After brainstorming, document:
- Problem statement (refined)
- Key insights discovered
- Assumptions identified (and which were challenged)
- Top approaches with pros/cons
- Decision and rationale
- Open questions for future exploration
Gotchas
| Trigger | Gotcha | Fix |
|---|
| "This approach seems good" in the first few minutes | Premature convergence — first idea is never fully examined | Enforce a DIVERGE phase before CONVERGE; exhaust alternatives before committing |
| Everyone agrees quickly with no pushback | Groupthink — consensus silences better options | Assign devil's advocate; use §2 Probing Assumptions questions to challenge the consensus |
| 30+ minutes of questioning with no decision | Analysis paralysis — endless questioning without converging | Time-box phases using the Session Structure; reach CONVERGE by minute 30 |
| Questions framed as "Shouldn't we use X?" | Leading questions — forecloses alternatives before exploration | Rephrase as open questions per §1 Clarifying format ("What are the options here?") |
| Socratic questions met with defensiveness | Defensive responses — posture shuts down exploration | Frame questions as discovery, not criticism; restate the exploration goal |
