brainstorming

name	brainstorming
description	Use when brainstorming ideas, exploring solutions, generating options, clarifying requirements, designing architecture, or answering open-ended "how should we" and "what are the options" questions — even without the word "brainstorm".
tier	2
version	3.1
status	active

Universal Brainstorming Protocol

Purpose

Bridge the gap between a vague user intent ("Make it pop", "I need a referral system") and a concrete, actionable plan. This skill doesn't just clarify requirements — it actively generates ideas, helps the user evaluate trade-offs, and converges on a confirmed design before any code is written.

Red Flags (Anti-Rationalization)

STOP and READ THIS if you are thinking:

• "I'll just start coding, the requirements are clear enough" → WRONG. Even "clear" tasks have hidden assumptions. Validate first — rework costs 3x more than upfront clarification.
• "I'll skip idea generation and go straight to the obvious solution" → WRONG. The obvious solution is often the first one, not the best one. Generate at least 3 options for MEDIUM/COMPLEX tasks.
• "The user didn't ask for alternatives, so I'll just propose one" → WRONG. Brainstorming means expanding the solution space. Always present options with trade-offs.
• "I can't visualize this without a whiteboard" → WRONG. Use Mermaid, ASCII, or structured bullet lists — text-based visualization is always possible.
• "The user ignored my question, I'll guess" → WRONG. Don't guess on ambiguous requirements. Restate why the answer matters: "To avoid breaking X, I need to know Y."
• "This is too simple for a full brainstorm" → OK, but state it explicitly: "This is trivial — I propose X. Proceed?" Never silently skip the process.

Capabilities

• Classify task complexity (Trivial / Medium / Complex) and adapt workflow depth
• Generate diverse ideas using structured methodologies (SCAMPER, How Might We, Inversion, Analogy)
• Visualize architectures and flows (Mermaid → ASCII → Bullet Lists fallback)
• Facilitate diverge → converge cycles for open-ended problems
• Prioritize options using Impact/Effort analysis or criteria-based scoring
• Produce appropriate output artifacts (Design Doc, Strategy Doc, Ideas Board, Technical Spec)
• Handle both technical (architecture, API design) and non-technical (naming, strategy, UX) brainstorms

Execution Mode

• Mode: prompt-first
• Rationale: Brainstorming is inherently conversational and judgment-driven. No scripts needed — the value is in structured thinking and dialogue.

Safety Boundaries

• Scope: Operate only on the topic the user brings up. Do not expand scope to adjacent systems unless the user asks.
• No Code: Do NOT write implementation code during brainstorming (except trivial tasks). The output is a plan, not code.
• No Unilateral Decisions: Never commit to an approach without explicit user confirmation.
• Destructive Changes: If the brainstorm leads to replacing existing architecture, flag it clearly: "This would replace the current auth module. Are you sure?"

Validation Evidence

• User explicitly confirmed the final approach ("Yes", "Approved", "Let's go with B")
• For MEDIUM/COMPLEX: a Design Doc or Strategy Doc exists with trade-offs documented
• The Adversarial Checklist (Phase 4) passed with no red flags

---

Phase 1: Assess & Understand

1. Complexity Assessment (MANDATORY)

At the start, classify the task. This determines your entire workflow depth:

Level	Criteria	Protocol
TRIVIAL	Clear requirements, standard pattern, single component (e.g., "Fix typo", "Add log").	Fast Path: Confirm plan in 1-2 sentences. Go.
MEDIUM	Standard task but open details, 2-3 components (e.g., "Add dark mode", "Refactor auth").	Standard: 2-3 clarifying questions, generate 2-3 options, brief confirmation.
COMPLEX	High uncertainty, architectural impact, multiple domains (e.g., "Design referral system", "New microservice").	Deep Dive: Research → Ideation → Visualize → Trade-offs → Design Doc → Sign-off.

Commitment anchor: After classification, announce it explicitly: "This is a COMPLEX task — entering Deep Dive mode." This public commitment prevents silently downgrading the workflow depth later when you feel tempted to shortcut.

2. Context Gathering (Tool Agnostic)

• Search: Use your environment's search capability (e.g., grep, search_code, Glob) to understand existing patterns, tech stack, and conventions.
  • Guardrail: IF NO SEARCH TOOLS EXIST, do NOT guess. Ask the user: "I cannot scan the repo. Could you share package.json and relevant files?"
• Reading: Check task.md, README.md, or config files to align with project standards.
• Constraints: Identify hard constraints early — budget, timeline, tech stack, team skills, existing contracts.

---

Phase 2: Diverge — Generate Ideas (The "What If")

This phase expands the solution space. The goal is quantity and diversity, not perfection.

For TRIVIAL tasks

Skip this phase. Propose the obvious solution and confirm.

For MEDIUM tasks

Generate 2-3 options using at least one technique:

• Direct alternatives: List different implementation approaches (e.g., localStorage vs DB vs cookie for persistence)
• How Might We: Reframe the problem as "How might we onboard users without requiring email verification?" to unlock lateral thinking
• Analogy: "How do similar systems solve this?" (e.g., "Stripe handles this with webhooks, Shopify uses polling")

For COMPLEX tasks

Generate 3-5 options using multiple techniques (see references/ideation_techniques.md for step-by-step algorithms):

• SCAMPER: Systematically apply each letter (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other use, Eliminate, Reverse) to the current approach
• Inversion: "What would make this fail?" → then design the opposite
• First Principles: Strip the problem to fundamental truths — "Why do we need X at all?" — then rebuild from scratch, ignoring existing solutions
• How Might We: Reframe constraints as opportunities
• Analogy: Draw from patterns in other domains or well-known systems
• Constraint Removal: "If we had no budget limit, what would we build?" → then add constraints back
• Wild Card (MANDATORY for COMPLEX): Include at least one radically different approach that challenges the problem framing itself. Label it "Wild Card". Even if impractical, it expands the solution space and often inspires hybrid solutions.

Present ideas as a numbered list with a 1-sentence description each. Do NOT evaluate yet — that's Phase 3.

Knowledge Depth (MANDATORY for MEDIUM/COMPLEX)

Go beyond obvious solutions. For each option you generate, actively draw on the best available knowledge:

• Real-world precedents: Name specific companies, systems, or projects that solved similar problems. Cite what worked and what didn't. (e.g., "Spotify's Discover Weekly uses collaborative filtering + editorial curation — a hybrid that outperformed either alone")
• Cross-domain analogies: Borrow solutions from unrelated fields. A logistics problem might learn from ant colony algorithms; a notification system might learn from hospital alert fatigue research.
• Academic/research insights: If relevant research exists (distributed systems theory, UX studies, behavioral economics), reference it concretely.
• Name your sources: Do NOT say "some systems use X". Say "Stripe's payment retry uses exponential backoff with jitter — we could apply this to our notification delivery."

The most valuable thing you bring is cross-domain knowledge that the user doesn't have. Use it.

Smart Questions (Adaptive)

Ask questions to fill gaps, but adapt the count to complexity:

• TRIVIAL: 0-1 questions (confirm and go)
• MEDIUM: 1-2 questions, each with concrete options: "For persistence, do you prefer localStorage or a database?"
• COMPLEX: 2-4 questions across different dimensions (scope, quality attributes, constraints, priorities)

In Phase 2-3 (diverge/converge), always provide concrete options to reduce cognitive load. In Phase 1 (understand), open-ended questions are allowed when you need to discover the user's actual goal — e.g., "What does success look like for this project?"

---

Phase 3: Converge — Evaluate & Prioritize (The "Which One")

This phase narrows the solution space. The goal is a clear recommendation with reasoning.

Visual Thinking

For MEDIUM/COMPLEX tasks, visualize the proposed approach — visual models catch flaws that text descriptions miss:

• Primary: Mermaid (Flowcharts, Sequence Diagrams) — use when confident the user's UI supports it
• Fallback: ASCII Art or Structured Bullet Lists if environment is restricted (standard terminal)

Prioritization

For MEDIUM tasks with 2+ options:

• Quick comparison: A simple pros/cons table is sufficient

For COMPLEX tasks with 3+ options:

• Impact/Effort Matrix: Rate each option on impact (H/M/L) and effort (H/M/L)
• Criteria-Based Scoring: Define 3-5 criteria (performance, maintainability, time-to-ship, risk) and score each option
• Trade-off Summary: For the top 2 options, explicitly state: "Option A gives you speed but costs maintainability. Option B gives you clean architecture but costs an extra week."

Second-Order Thinking (COMPLEX tasks)

Before recommending, consider consequences beyond the immediate:

• 6-month consequences: What new problems will the recommended option create? (e.g., "Async processing means we need an observability stack for the queue")
• Scaling implications: What breaks at 10x current load/users/data?
• Organizational impact: Which teams need to change? What new skills are required?

State these explicitly in your recommendation — they are part of the trade-off, not afterthoughts.

Recommendation

Always end with a clear recommendation: "I recommend the event-driven approach because it decouples services. The main risk is message loss, mitigated by a dead-letter queue."

Do NOT present options without a recommendation — the user hired you to think, not just list.

---

Phase 4: Verify & Confirm (The "Gate")

Pre-Mortem (MANDATORY for COMPLEX)

Before presenting the final recommendation, run a Pre-Mortem (Gary Klein's technique): "Imagine this solution failed catastrophically in production 6 months from now. What went wrong?"

List 3 plausible failure scenarios. For each, verify the design has a mitigation. If it doesn't — add one or flag it as an open risk to the user.

Adversarial Checklist

Before asking for approval, explicitly verify in your reasoning:

• Red Flags: Did I ignore any user constraints or project conventions?
• YAGNI: Is this the simplest solution that meets requirements? Am I over-engineering?
• Alignment: Does this match the project's tech stack (e.g., not suggesting React for a Vue app)?
• Idea Diversity: Did I genuinely explore alternatives, or just dress up one idea in different words?
• Knowledge Depth: Did I cite real-world precedents, or just generate ideas from thin air?
• User Confirmation: Has the user explicitly agreed to this specific approach?

Output Artifacts

Choose the appropriate artifact based on task type:

Task Type	Artifact	When
Architecture / System Design	Design Doc (docs/design/feature-name.md)	COMPLEX technical tasks
Strategy / Business Decision	Strategy Doc (in chat or file)	Non-code brainstorms
Naming / UX / Creative	Ideas Board (numbered list with pros/cons)	Creative tasks
Standard Feature	Technical Spec (brief summary in chat)	MEDIUM tasks
Trivial Change	Chat confirmation (1-2 sentences)	TRIVIAL tasks

No File Access? Output the full Markdown in chat and ask the user to save it.

Handover

• Presentation: "Here is the proposed design for the referral system. Trade-offs considered: sync vs async processing. I recommend async."
• Checkpoint: "Please confirm this approach before I proceed to implementation."
• Rejection: "Understood. You prefer the synchronous approach. Pivoting the design. Here's the updated plan..."

---

Phase 5: Iterate (The "Loop Back")

Brainstorming is not linear. If the user:

• Rejects all options → Return to Phase 2 with a different technique:
  1. Ask "What's missing or wrong with these options?" to understand the gap
  2. Switch technique — if you used Direct/Analogy, try Inversion or First Principles
  3. Challenge the original constraints: "Are any of these constraints actually flexible?"
  4. If still stuck, use Constraint Removal to find the ideal, then work backwards
• Wants to explore a tangent → Acknowledge it, mini-brainstorm the tangent (1-2 options), then explicitly return: "Coming back to the main thread..."
• Changes requirements mid-stream → Re-assess complexity. Announce if the level changed: "This has moved from MEDIUM to COMPLEX — switching to Deep Dive mode." Re-enter at Phase 2.
• Says "I don't know" → That's a signal to generate more options, not to guess. Use Inversion ("What would you NOT want?") or Analogy ("Here's how Slack/Stripe/Spotify solved a similar problem...") to unlock new angles.
• Brainstorm stalls → Offer a provocative constraint: "What if we had to ship this in 1 day? What would we cut?" Or flip perspective: "What would your users wish this did?"

---

Rationalization Table (Additional Anti-Patterns)

These complement the Red Flags section with situational traps:

Agent Excuse	Reality / Correct Action
"My options are good enough — no need for deep research."	WRONG. Surface-level options waste the user's time. Cite real systems, research, or precedents.
"I generated 3 options, that's enough diversity."	CHECK. Are they genuinely different approaches, or the same idea with different names? Apply the "would a different team choose differently?" test.
"The second-order effects are obvious, no need to state them."	WRONG. State them explicitly. What's obvious to you may be invisible to the user.
"This seems standard."	VERIFY. Is it standard for this project? Check conventions first.
"The Wild Card option is too weird to include."	WRONG. That's exactly why it's valuable. Label it, present it, let the user decide.

---

Edge Cases

• User provides full design: Summarize understanding, verify 1-2 assumptions, then Fast Track to implementation.
• Non-Code Idea: Switch to "Strategy" mode. Output a Strategy Doc instead of Technical Spec. Use business criteria for prioritization (revenue, user impact, feasibility).
• Legacy Code: If context is massive, ask: "Which specific files should I anchor my design on?"
• User says "just do it": Classify as TRIVIAL. Confirm in 1 sentence and proceed. But if the task is objectively COMPLEX, push back once: "This touches auth, billing, and notifications. A 2-minute brainstorm now saves hours later. Quick: sync or async processing?"