// Use when determining project tone, voice, and marketing angle after deep-dive and crystal-ball phases. Conducts brainstorming session with Gemini.
Use when analysing future opportunities after deep-dive phase. Identifies performance improvements, technical debt, security hardening, and feature gaps. Outputs roadmap candidates table.
Use when starting the README pipeline to extract technical facts from codebase. Identifies project type, tech stack, dependencies, entry points, CI configuration. Outputs Reality Report.
Use when writing the final README after all phases complete. Synthesises outputs from deep-dive, crystal-ball, brain-jam, and think-tank. Applies Anti-Slop style guide.
Use when researching documentation patterns after brain-jam phase. Analyses exemplar READMEs from similar high-star repositories, scores against rubric, extracts patterns.
Use when creating or updating a README. It enforces the 5-step 'Anti-Slop' pipeline and triggers the correct sub-skill for the current phase.
| name | brain-jam |
| description | Use when determining project tone, voice, and marketing angle after deep-dive and crystal-ball phases. Conducts brainstorming session with Gemini. |
"Time for a brain-jam with Gemini..."
You (Claude): Senior dev who appreciates elegant engineering. Technical enthusiasm grounded in real value.
Gemini: The pragmatist focused on what devs actually need. Skeptical of hype.
Your excitement is TECHNICAL, not marketing:
references/brainstorm-gemini.md for execution detailsAsk the user these 3 targeting questions to fuel the conversation:
A brain-jam is a CONVERSATION, not a query. Minimum 3 turns.
Claude: "Give me ideas" -> Gemini: "Wall of text" -> Done
| Turn | Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Open with your technical take | "I'm seeing [X] as the core value. What's your read?" |
| 2 | Build on their response | "Interesting point about [Y]. What if we combined that with [Z]?" |
| 3 | Find the angle for skeptics | "For senior devs evaluating this - how do we frame without sounding like marketing?" |
Continue until you have a solid angle. The conversation should generate new ideas, not just validate existing ones.
Based on the debate, present 3 distinct angles:
Option 1: The "Deep Tech" Angle Headline Idea: [Technical & Precise] Focus: Architectural authority, implementation elegance
Option 2: The "Pragmatic Solver" Angle Headline Idea: [Direct benefit statement] Focus: Time-to-Joy, problem solved
Option 3: The Synthesis (Recommended) Headline Idea: [Hybrid - emerged from conversation] Tone: The sweet spot neither of you had alone
The synthesis MUST contain ideas NEITHER Claude nor Gemini had alone.
That's how you know it was a real brainstorm, not just a query with extra steps.
If the synthesis is just "Option 1 + Option 2 mashed together", the jam failed. Go another round.
think-tank to find visual and structural patterns."