brainstorming
Skill9 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
21 rules. 1 is common, 18 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
1
Common
Most of the 171 edited versions we read keep these.
18
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea.
- Distinctive: line 13
Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a …
- Distinctive: line 59
The terminal state is invoking writing-plans: Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill.
- Common: line 65
Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
- Distinctive: line 66
Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with …
- Distinctive: line 69
Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
- Distinctive: line 70
Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
- Distinctive: line 83
Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
- Distinctive: line 98
Don't propose unrelated refactoring.
- Very specific: line 104
Write the validated design (spec) to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
- Distinctive: line 106
Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
- Distinctive: line 107
Commit the design document to git
- Distinctive: line 110
After writing the spec document:
- Distinctive: line 113
If Issues Found: fix, re-dispatch, repeat until Approved
- Distinctive: line 114
If loop exceeds 5 iterations, surface to human for guidance
- Distinctive: line 119
Do NOT invoke any other skill.
- Distinctive: line 123
One question at a time: - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
- Distinctive: line 125
YAGNI ruthlessly: - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
- Distinctive: line 126
Explore alternatives: - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
- Distinctive: line 134
Offering the companion: When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once …
- Very specific: line 146
If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding: skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 171 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
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.
<HARD-GATE>
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. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
</HARD-GATE>Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
Checklist
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
- Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
- Offer visual companion (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. 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.mdand commit - Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
Process Flow
digraph brainstorming {
"Explore project context" [shape=box];
"Visual questions ahead?" [shape=diamond];
"Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [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];
"Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
"Explore project context" -> "Visual questions ahead?";
"Visual questions ahead?" -> "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [label="yes"];
"Visual questions ahead?" -> "Ask clarifying questions" [label="no"];
"Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" -> "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" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill";
}The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
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
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
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 Review Loop: After writing the spec document:
- Dispatch spec-document-reviewer subagent (see spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md)
- If Issues Found: fix, re-dispatch, repeat until Approved
- If loop exceeds 5 iterations, surface to human for guidance
Implementation:
- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
Key Principles
- 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: When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
"Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)"
This offer MUST be its own message. Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.
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
Other versions192 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 3
- AgentTeam-TaichuAI/ScienceClaw★ 671100% same
- duncan-buildroom/profit-room-skills★ 18100% same
- zkw15555506767-boop/claude-skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 106
- openai/plugins★ 7.4k40% same
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6k84% same
- BetterTyped/react-zoom-pan-pinch★ 1.9k84% same
- revokslab/ShipFree★ 1.7k73% same
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3k37% same
- coco-research/coco★ 79786% same
- shobcoder/shob★ 57586% same
- lnikell/loopndroll★ 56784% same
- involvex/youtube-music-cli★ 46173% same
- derHaken/SuperAntigravity★ 43965% same
96 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 83
- obra/superpowers★ 305ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- vudovn/ag-kit★ 8.2ksame name
- vudovn/antigravity-kit★ 8.2ksame name
- JetBrains/thinkrail★ 6.8ksame name
- microsoft/FluidFramework★ 5ksame name
- feiskyer/claude-code-settings★ 1.7ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- sentient-agi/EvoSkill★ 1.2ksame name
- feiskyer/codex-settings★ 243same name
73 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
GEd520Skillchinese-code-review
中文 review 沟通参考——话术模板、分级标注(必须修复/建议修改/仅供参考)、国内团队常见反模式应对。仅在用户显式 /chinese-code-review 时调用,不要根据上下文自动触发。
Also in 7 projects that use this
GEd520Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 commit 与 changelog 配置参考——Conventional Commits 中文适配、commitlint/husky/commitizen 中文模板、conventional-changelog 中文配置。仅在用户显式 /chinese-commit-conventions 时调用,不要根据上下文自动触发。
Also in 7 projects that use this
ryanportfolioSkilladdskill
Create, import, update, or install repository or personal skills; includes runtime ownership, resources, and discovery validation.
Also in 5 projects that use this
ryanportfolioSkillastra-fullreview
Full multi-agent Codex review on gpt-6-astra at medium reasoning. Same verified lifecycle as codex-fullreview. Use for /astra-fullreview or 'full Astra review with sub-reviewers'.
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +2 more from GEd520
- +6 more from ryanportfolio
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- writing-skillsSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

