| name | design-synthesis |
| type | simple |
| depth | extended |
| description | Synthesizes research findings into design decisions via codebase investigation. Use when (1) translating research into implementation approaches, (2) selecting between design alternatives, (3) executing after /research or deep-research, or (4) preparing input for /plan phase. |
[H1][DESIGN-SYNTHESIS]
Dictum: Design decisions require grounded context before implementation.
Synthesize research findings into design decisions via light codebase investigation.
Workflow:
- §INGEST — Load research artifact, parse original request
- §SCAN — Light codebase investigation via
parallel-dispatch (3-4 agents)
- §EXPLORE — Generate 2-3 approaches with trade-offs
- §SELECT — Commit to best approach with rationale
- §OUTPUT — Structured design document
Dependencies:
parallel-dispatch — Agent orchestration for codebase scan- Research artifact — External findings from
deep-research
Input:
Research: Path to research artifact (research_{slug}.md)Request: Original user request/intent
[1][INGEST]
Dictum: Grounded context prevents speculative design.
Load and parse inputs:
| [INDEX] | Source | Extract |
|---|
| [1] | Research file | Findings, confidence levels, key sources |
| [2] | Request | Intent, scope boundaries, success criteria |
Parse research structure:
## [1][FINDINGS] → Domain knowledge by category## [2][CONFIDENCE] → High/Medium/Low ratings## [3][SOURCES] → Attribution for decisions
[IMPORTANT]:
- [ALWAYS] Extract high-confidence findings as primary input.
- [ALWAYS] Note low-confidence areas as design risks.
- [NEVER] Proceed without understanding request intent.
[2][SCAN]
Dictum: Pattern awareness prevents reinvention.
Dispatch 3-4 agents via parallel-dispatch for codebase context.
Agent Assignment:
| [INDEX] | [AGENT] | [SCOPE] | [RETURNS] |
|---|
| [1] | Patterns | Similar implementations in codebase | Conventions, reusable patterns, prior art |
| [2] | Constraints | Project rules, architecture limits | Hard boundaries, style requirements |
| [3] | Interfaces | Entry/exit points for feature area | Touch points, consumers, integration surface |
Agent Prompt Template:
Scope: [Specific investigation area]
Objective: Surface [patterns|constraints|interfaces] relevant to: [request summary]
Output: Bullet list of findings with file paths
Context: Research indicates: [key findings summary]
Exclusions: Do NOT analyze implementation details or specific file contents
[CRITICAL]:
- [ALWAYS] Dispatch ALL agents in ONE message block.
- [ALWAYS] Scope to patterns/constraints/interfaces—NOT implementation.
- [NEVER] Deep-dive into file contents—that's plan's job.
[3][EXPLORE]
Dictum: Comparison reveals optimal trade-offs.
Generate 2-3 distinct approaches from research + scan findings.
Per Approach:
| [INDEX] | Aspect | Content |
|---|
| [1] | Strategy | High-level implementation direction |
| [2] | Alignment | How it leverages research findings |
| [3] | Patterns | Which codebase conventions it follows |
| [4] | Trade-offs | Pros and cons |
Approach Generation Criteria:
- Approach A: Most aligned with existing patterns (conservative)
- Approach B: Best leverage of research findings (optimal)
- Approach C: Simplest implementation path (minimal) — optional
[IMPORTANT]:
- [ALWAYS] Ground approaches in scan findings—no speculation.
- [ALWAYS] Include trade-off analysis per approach.
- [ALWAYS] Apply YAGNI—cut unnecessary scope from all approaches.
- [NEVER] Generate approaches without codebase evidence.
[4][SELECT]
Dictum: Committed direction enables focused planning.
Select best approach via weighted criteria:
| [INDEX] | Criterion | Weight | Evaluation |
|---|
| [1] | Pattern alignment | High | Matches existing codebase conventions |
| [2] | Research support | High | Backed by high-confidence findings |
| [3] | Simplicity | Medium | Minimal moving parts |
| [4] | Risk profile | Medium | Low-confidence areas minimized |
Selection Output:
- Selected approach name
- Primary rationale (1-2 sentences)
- Key trade-off accepted
[CRITICAL]:
- [ALWAYS] Commit to ONE approach—no hedging.
- [ALWAYS] Document trade-off accepted.
- [NEVER] Defer selection to downstream phases.
[5][OUTPUT]
Dictum: Downstream consumers require predictable structure.
Produce brainstorm.md with structure:
# [H1][DESIGN]: [Title]
>**Dictum:** *[Build target—refined from request]*
<br>
**Research Summary:** [Key findings relevant to design]
---
## [1][APPROACHES]
### [1.1][APPROACH_A]: [Name]
| [INDEX] | [ASPECT] | [DETAIL] |
| :-----: | --------- | ------------------------------- |
| [1] | Strategy | [High-level direction] |
| [2] | Alignment | [Research findings leveraged] |
| [3] | Patterns | [Codebase conventions followed] |
| [4] | Pros | [Benefits] |
| [5] | Cons | [Drawbacks] |
---
### [1.2][APPROACH_B]: [Name]
| [INDEX] | [ASPECT] | [DETAIL] |
| :-----: | --------- | ------------------------------- |
| [1] | Strategy | [High-level direction] |
| [2] | Alignment | [Research findings leveraged] |
| [3] | Patterns | [Codebase conventions followed] |
| [4] | Pros | [Benefits] |
| [5] | Cons | [Drawbacks] |
---
## [2][SELECTED_APPROACH]
| [INDEX] | [KEY] | [VALUE] |
| :-----: | ------------------ | ---------------------- |
| [1] | Choice | [Approach name] |
| [2] | Rationale | [Why this approach] |
| [3] | Trade-off Accepted | [What we're giving up] |
---
## [3][DESIGN_CONSTRAINTS]
| [INDEX] | [CONSTRAINT] | [SOURCE] |
| :-----: | --------------- | --------------- |
| [1] | [Hard boundary] | [Codebase scan] |
| [2] | ... | ... |
---
## [4][KEY_DECISIONS]
| [INDEX] | [DECISION] | [CHOICE] | [RATIONALE] |
| :-----: | --------------- | ----------------- | ----------- |
| [1] | [Design choice] | [Selected option] | [Why] |
| [2] | [Design choice] | [Selected option] | [Why] |
[CRITICAL]:
- [ALWAYS] Include all sections—downstream depends on structure.
- [ALWAYS] Table format for approaches and decisions.
- [NEVER] Prose paragraphs—tables and lists only.
[6][VALIDATION]
Dictum: Incomplete synthesis cascades errors downstream.
[VERIFY]:
