원클릭으로
brainstorming
// Socratic questioning protocol + user communication. MANDATORY for complex requests, new features, or unclear requirements. Includes progress reporting and error handling.
// Socratic questioning protocol + user communication. MANDATORY for complex requests, new features, or unclear requirements. Includes progress reporting and error handling.
| name | brainstorming |
| description | Socratic questioning protocol + user communication. MANDATORY for complex requests, new features, or unclear requirements. Includes progress reporting and error handling. |
| when_to_use | When exploring options before implementation, clarifying requirements, or when the user needs creative problem-solving. Use with /brainstorm workflow. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep |
MANDATORY: Use for complex/vague requests, new features, updates.
| Pattern | Action |
|---|---|
| "Build/Create/Make [thing]" without details | 🛑 ASK 3 questions |
| Complex feature or architecture | 🛑 Clarify before implementing |
| Update/change request | 🛑 Confirm scope |
| Vague requirements | 🛑 Ask purpose, users, constraints |
Before asking questions, check if past context exists:
0. CHECK MEMORY — Does .agent/memory/MEMORY.md exist?
→ YES: Read index. Apply relevant past decisions silently.
Skip questions already answered in memory.
→ NO: Proceed with standard Socratic Gate.
.agent/memory/ for past context on this topic/remember [decision]⛔ NEVER use static templates. Read dynamic-questioning.md for principles.
| Principle | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Questions Reveal Consequences | Each question connects to an architectural decision |
| Context Before Content | Understand greenfield/feature/refactor/debug context first |
| Minimum Viable Questions | Each question must eliminate implementation paths |
| Generate Data, Not Assumptions | Don't guess—ask with trade-offs |
1. Parse request → Extract domain, features, scale indicators
2. Identify decision points → Blocking vs. deferable
3. Generate questions → Priority: P0 (blocking) > P1 (high-leverage) > P2 (nice-to-have)
4. Format with trade-offs → What, Why, Options, Default
### [PRIORITY] **[DECISION POINT]**
**Question:** [Clear question]
**Why This Matters:**
- [Architectural consequence]
- [Affects: cost/complexity/timeline/scale]
**Options:**
| Option | Pros | Cons | Best For |
|--------|------|------|----------|
| A | [+] | [-] | [Use case] |
**If Not Specified:** [Default + rationale]
For detailed domain-specific question banks and algorithms, see: dynamic-questioning.md
PRINCIPLE: Transparency builds trust. Status must be visible and actionable.
| Agent | Status | Current Task | Progress |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Agent Name] | ✅🔄⏳❌⚠️ | [Task description] | [% or count] |
| Icon | Meaning | Usage |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ | Completed | Task finished successfully |
| 🔄 | Running | Currently executing |
| ⏳ | Waiting | Blocked, waiting for dependency |
| ❌ | Error | Failed, needs attention |
| ⚠️ | Warning | Potential issue, not blocking |
PRINCIPLE: Errors are opportunities for clear communication.
1. Acknowledge the error
2. Explain what happened (user-friendly)
3. Offer specific solutions with trade-offs
4. Ask user to choose or provide alternative
| Category | Response Strategy |
|---|---|
| Port Conflict | Offer alternative port or close existing |
| Dependency Missing | Auto-install or ask permission |
| Build Failure | Show specific error + suggested fix |
| Unclear Error | Ask for specifics: screenshot, console output |
PRINCIPLE: Celebrate success, guide next steps.
1. Success confirmation (celebrate briefly)
2. Summary of what was done (concrete)
3. How to verify/test (actionable)
4. Next steps suggestion (proactive)
| Principle | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Concise | No unnecessary details, get to point |
| Visual | Use emojis (✅🔄⏳❌) for quick scanning |
| Specific | "~2 minutes" not "wait a bit" |
| Alternatives | Offer multiple paths when stuck |
| Proactive | Suggest next step after completion |
| Anti-Pattern | Why |
|---|---|
| Jumping to solutions before understanding | Wastes time on wrong problem |
| Assuming requirements without asking | Creates wrong output |
| Over-engineering first version | Delays value delivery |
| Ignoring constraints | Creates unusable solutions |
| "I think" phrases | Uncertainty → Ask instead |
Token-efficient code review using Tree-sitter AST graphs and MCP. Reduces AI assistant token usage by 6.8–49x by computing blast radius of changes instead of reading entire codebases. Uses SQLite graph database for structural analysis.
Persistent cross-session memory management. Enables agents to remember user preferences, project conventions, and past decisions across different sessions using a structured MEMORY.md index and topic files.
Multi-agent orchestration patterns. Use when multiple independent tasks can run with different domain expertise or when comprehensive analysis requires multiple perspectives.
Reduce complexity of over-engineered code. Identify unnecessary abstractions, remove dead code, flatten deep nesting, and simplify logic while preserving behavior.
API design principles and decision-making. REST vs GraphQL vs tRPC selection, response formats, versioning, pagination.
Main application building orchestrator. Creates full-stack applications from natural language requests. Determines project type, selects tech stack, coordinates agents.