| name | brainstorming |
| description | Use before feature or design work that carries real ambiguity or a load-bearing decision, ahead of writing implementation code — explores intent, requirements and design first. Do NOT use for trivial changes, mechanical edits, or work whose design is already settled. |
Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
Size Gate — assess first, before engaging further
Size gate: trivial → skip (no artifact); medium → lean plan only (no separate spec); large/ambiguous → full spec.
The trigger is ambiguity/complexity, not size alone — a small change that hinges on a load-bearing decision still gets the full treatment below; a large but mechanical change doesn't.
- Trivial (no real ambiguity, no decision to make) → skip this skill entirely. No spec, no plan — just do it.
- Medium (some judgment calls, but scoped and clear) → skip the separate spec. Go straight to a lean plan via the writing-plans skill, with a 2-3 line "why" header at the top of the plan capturing the goal and key trade-off. No design doc.
- Large / ambiguous / load-bearing → run the full process below: spec (durable why) → plan (disposable how, via writing-plans).
When unsure which tier applies, size up rather than down — an unnecessary question costs one exchange; a missed decision costs rework.
For large/ambiguous work (see Size Gate above), do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it.
Checklist
The following applies to the large/ambiguous tier. Medium work skips straight to writing-plans (see Size Gate above); trivial work skips this skill entirely.
Work through these in order:
- Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
- Offer the visual companion just-in-time — NOT upfront. The first time a question would genuinely be clearer shown than described, offer it then (its own message); on approval its browser tab opens for you. If no visual question ever arises, never offer it. See the Visual Companion section below.
- Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
- Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
- Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
- Write design doc — save to
docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md and commit
- Spec self-review — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
- User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
- Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
Process Flow
This flow is the large/ambiguous tier (see Size Gate above). Medium work skips straight to Invoke writing-plans skill; trivial work skips this graph entirely.
digraph brainstorming {
"Explore project context" [shape=box];
"Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
"Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
"Present design sections" [shape=box];
"User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
"Write design doc" [shape=box];
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
"User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
"Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
"Explore project context" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
"Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
"Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
"Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
"User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
"User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
"Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
"User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
"User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"];
}
The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill.
If the design turned on where a boundary goes, what an interface should hide, or why something is hard to test, settle that in the spec before the plan: name the module, what its interface hides, and the seam its behaviour is testable through.
The Process
Understanding the idea:
- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
- Tree, not list — one branch, one question; the answer picks the next question rather than working down a fixed list prepared in advance
- Always offer a recommended default with each question — the biggest fatigue reducer; the user can accept it instead of deliberating from scratch
- Auto-resolve first — before asking, check what's discoverable in the codebase/docs; only ask what genuinely needs the human's judgment
- Log evidence inline as decisions resolve (into the spec draft as you go), not reconstructed at the end. Stop condition: no unresolved items remain — not a fixed question count
Exploring approaches:
- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
Doc-grounded assumption check:
- Before locking the design, check every load-bearing library/API assumption against fetched docs (context7 / WebFetch)
- Surface any contradiction as one question — don't silently pick a resolution
Presenting the design:
- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
Design for isolation and clarity:
- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.
Working in existing codebases:
- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
After the Design
Documentation:
- Write the validated design (spec) to
docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
- (User preferences for spec location override this default)
- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
- Commit the design document to git
Spec Self-Review:
After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:
- Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
- Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
- Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
- Ambiguity check: Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.
Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.
User Review Gate:
After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:
"Spec written and committed to <path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."
Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.
Implementation:
- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
- Do NOT invoke any implementation skill. writing-plans is the next step.
- If the design hinged on a boundary, an interface, or a testability problem,
settle it in the spec first — name the module, its interface, and the seam.
Key Principles
- Size-gated - trivial skips the artifact, medium gets a lean plan, large/ambiguous gets a full spec (see Size Gate above)
- One question at a time - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
- Multiple choice preferred - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
- YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
- Explore alternatives - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
- Incremental validation - Present design, get approval before moving on
- Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
Visual Companion
A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.
Offering the companion (just-in-time): Do NOT offer it upfront. Wait until a question would genuinely be clearer shown than told — a real mockup / layout / diagram question, not merely a UI topic. The first time that happens, offer it then, as its own message:
"This next part might be easier if I show you — I can put together mockups, diagrams, and comparisons in a browser tab as we go. It's still new and can be token-intensive. Want me to? I'll open it for you."
This offer MUST be its own message. Only the offer — no clarifying question, summary, or other content. Wait for the user's response. If they accept, start the server with --open so their browser opens to the first screen automatically. If they decline, continue text-only and don't offer again unless they raise it.
Per-question decision: Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?
- Use the browser for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
- Use the terminal for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions
A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.
If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:
skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md
