| name | interface-brainstorming |
| description | Generate multiple strategically distinct UI/UX interface proposals for a conceptual solution. Activate automatically when: - the task involves UI, UX, interaction flows, layouts, screens, wireframes, or frontend decisions - visual or interaction trade-offs are ambiguous - brainstorming transitions into interface definition - the user requests interface alternatives, UX exploration, or design directions
|
Interface Brainstorming
A skill for generating strategically distinct interface proposals for conceptual product solutions.
The goal is not merely to vary aesthetics, but to explore fundamentally different interaction models, mental models, densities, workflows, and user philosophies.
This skill should help:
- expand solution space
- reveal hidden assumptions
- expose trade-offs
- compare interaction philosophies
- converge toward a strategically coherent direction
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- designing new products or features
- evaluating competing UI approaches
- interface decisions are ambiguous
- exploring user flows or interaction models
- translating product concepts into concrete interfaces
- frontend structure meaningfully affects product strategy
Context Reconstruction
Before generating proposals:
-
Infer as much context as possible from:
- the current request
- session history
- previous brainstorming
- referenced plans/specifications
- implied workflows and constraints
-
Reconstruct internally:
- problem statement
- user goals
- likely workflows
- platform assumptions
- interaction constraints
- success criteria
-
Extract the likely underlying job-to-be-done instead of relying only on the explicitly requested interface structure.
Do not blindly preserve:
- existing UI metaphors
- requested layouts
- assumed workflows
Challenge assumptions when useful.
Progressive Clarification Principle
Prefer proceeding with explicit assumptions instead of blocking for additional information.
Only ask follow-up questions when missing information would materially change:
- interaction architecture
- platform strategy
- density strategy
- primary workflows
- accessibility constraints
- technical feasibility
If assumptions are made:
- state them explicitly
- continue with the exploration
Avoid asking for:
- restating already available context
- full specifications
- exhaustive requirements
- formal solution documents
Hidden Job Extraction
Do not accept the requested interface structure at face value.
Infer:
- the underlying job-to-be-done
- latent user motivations
- operational tensions
- likely misuse/friction points
- whether the requested UI metaphor is actually necessary
The proposals should respond to the underlying need, not only the explicitly requested structure.
Design Archetypes
| Proposal | Philosophy | Core Goal |
|---|
| A | Conventional Standard | Maximize familiarity and reduce learning curve |
| B | Interaction Paradigm Shift | Reframe the mental model of the interaction itself |
| C | Technological Vanguard | Use advanced technology to create a magical experience |
| D | Radical Simplicity | Remove everything except the essential interaction |
| E | Expert / Command-First | Optimize for speed, fluency, and expert throughput |
Archetype Details
Proposal A — Conventional Standard
Use the safest and most established UX patterns for the problem space.
Optimize for:
- predictability
- familiarity
- onboarding ease
- low usability risk
- consistency with existing SaaS/mobile conventions
The interface should feel immediately understandable.
Proposal B — Interaction Paradigm Shift
Completely rethink how the user conceptualizes the task.
Possible transformations:
- active → passive
- search → discovery
- form → conversation
- dashboard → journey
- command → context
- state → progression
Guiding question:
"If we had never seen this category before, how else could this interaction be conceived?"
The goal is conceptual reframing, not cosmetic novelty.
Proposal C — Technological Vanguard
Use advanced technologies to radically simplify or elevate the experience.
Potential technologies:
- AI copilots
- natural language interaction
- predictive systems
- ambient computing
- automation
- computer vision
- semantic search
- adaptive interfaces
Focus on:
- experiential innovation
- leverage through intelligence
- reducing user effort via technology
Implementation complexity is acceptable if the user experience meaningfully improves.
Proposal D — Radical Simplicity
Innovation through subtraction and focus.
Process:
- Identify the true job-to-be-done
- Remove non-essential interactions
- Collapse flows aggressively
- Replace complex metaphors with simpler ones
Optimize for:
- clarity
- calmness
- low cognitive load
- immediacy
- essentialism
Guiding question:
"What is the smallest possible interaction that still solves the core problem?"
Proposal E — Expert / Command-First
Design for users who already understand the domain.
Prioritize:
- keyboard-first interaction
- dense information layouts
- command palettes
- batch actions
- low interaction latency
- minimal visual chrome
- progressive acceleration
- high information throughput
Assume:
- users prefer speed over guidance
- users value control over discoverability
- onboarding is secondary
Guiding question:
"If the user already knew exactly what to do, what could we remove?"
References:
- Linear
- Raycast
- Superhuman
- Vim
- Figma command palette
Difference Between D and E
Proposal D removes complexity to make the experience universally understandable.
Proposal E removes guidance, onboarding, and explanatory structure to maximize speed for experienced users.
D optimizes for clarity.
E optimizes for fluency.
They are not interchangeable.
Proposal Separation Rule
Each proposal must differ in at least TWO of the following:
- interaction model
- navigation structure
- information architecture
- primary metaphor
- user agency model
- density strategy
- feedback model
- temporal flow
- command structure
Do not generate proposals that differ only visually or cosmetically.
Forced Trade-Off Rule
Each proposal must intentionally sacrifice something to optimize another dimension.
Examples:
- simplicity over flexibility
- automation over control
- speed over discoverability
- familiarity over differentiation
- density over approachability
Avoid “best of all worlds” proposals.
Evaluation Criteria
Each proposal should strongly optimize for a different dimension:
| Proposal | Optimization |
|---|
| A | Familiarity |
| B | Conceptual reframing |
| C | Experiential leverage through technology |
| D | Essentialism and reduction |
| E | Expert speed and fluency |
Hybrid Recommendation Phase
After generating all proposals:
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal in context
- Identify compatible patterns that can be combined coherently
- Recommend:
- one primary direction
- optional secondary traits borrowed from others
- Explicitly explain:
- what should NOT be combined
- which trade-offs are intentionally preserved
The hybrid recommendation must remain coherent.
Avoid:
- feature soup
- contradictory interaction models
- “best of all worlds” synthesis
The recommendation should feel strategically opinionated.
When presenting selectable options later, prioritize the recommended hybrid as the first option in the selection list whenever possible.
The recommendation should act as the default strategic convergence point unless the user explicitly prefers another direction.
Required Output Structure
For EACH proposal (A–E), generate:
1. Philosophy and Design Guidelines
Explain:
- design philosophy
- interaction philosophy
- intended user feeling
- strategic rationale
2. Breadboarding and Interaction Guidelines
Include:
- interface ingredients/components
- primary interaction loop
- navigation model
- states and feedback
- information density
- copy/tone guidance
3. Main Interface Sketch (ASCII)
Provide a simple ASCII wireframe.
The goal is clarity, not visual perfection.
4. Interaction Flow (ASCII)
Provide an ASCII flow diagram covering:
- primary user flow
- key transitions
- important system responses
5. Trade-Off Analysis
Include:
- pros
- cons
- development effort
- usability risk
- scalability implications
- maintainability considerations
Recommendation Output
After Proposal E, generate:
🧭 Recommended Direction
Include:
- primary proposal foundation
- elements borrowed from other proposals
- why the combination fits the context
- what trade-offs are intentionally accepted
- what should explicitly NOT be combined
- suggested implementation sequencing (optional)
The recommendation should be decisive and strategically coherent.
Selection Step
After presenting all proposals and the recommendation:
Use the question tool when available.
Provide:
- short label
- one-line description
Options (recommended option first whenever possible):
- H — Recommended Hybrid
- A — Conventional
- B — Paradigm Shift
- C — Vanguard
- D — Radical Simplicity
- E — Expert / Command-First
Fallback:
"Select A, B, C, D, E, or H."
Output Quality Expectations
Strong outputs:
- reveal hidden assumptions
- explore genuinely different interaction models
- expose meaningful trade-offs
- create productive strategic tension
- help convergence, not only divergence
Weak outputs:
- differ only cosmetically
- merely add/remove AI
- preserve identical architecture across proposals
- avoid difficult trade-offs
- collapse into generic SaaS dashboards
The proposals should feel meaningfully different in philosophy, interaction model, and strategic intent.
