agentleFS
bex-cobex-co/bex-security/.claude/skills/pm-brainstorm/SKILL.md

pm-brainstorm

Skill54 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Analyze and decompose a product topic into a text-only proposal for the repository's .pm board. Use when the user wants to pressure-test scope, size milestones, identify dependencies, or prepare exact PM board commands without writing board files.

4 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions4 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 1

    1. bex-co/bex★ 57648% same

    Wrote their own version · 3

    1. puncsky/system-design-and-architecture★ 3.6ksame name
    2. konglong87/superPM★ 84same name
    3. pinkroosterai/PinkRoosterMcp★ 2same name

    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.

  • In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Load the canon and the anti-goals: Read .claude/skills/pm/SKILL.md (conventions), .pm/DO_NOT_DO.md (hard constraint), and the repository …

    line 17

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Task: Propose milestones and tasks

/pm-brainstorm is the divergent half of the pair: it thinks a topic through, proposes work, and hands orchestration and materialization to /pm. It writes nothing — the output is a text proposal. $ARGUMENTS is the topic/goal.

The board conventions — hierarchy, sizing rule, milestone quality gate, standing closing tasks, templates — live canonically in .claude/skills/pm/SKILL.md. Read that file and apply its rules; do not restate or diverge from them here.

Steps

  1. Load the canon and the anti-goals. Read .claude/skills/pm/SKILL.md (conventions), .pm/DO_NOT_DO.md (hard constraint), and the repository AGENTS.md (keep-it-simple, no speculative defenses, public CLI surface discipline). If a proposed item conflicts with an anti-goal, reject it explicitly and explain why.
  2. Sync with remote main. Before analyzing anything, run git fetch origin main then git status to check whether the local branch is behind. If it is and the working tree is clean, git pull (fast-forward) so the .pm board state you read next reflects the latest remote. If the working tree is dirty or the branch has diverged, report this to the user and ask how to proceed rather than pulling over local work.
  3. Load context. Read the relevant .pm board state (workstream README.mds, open milestones, inbox notes — find .pm -name README.md, plus loose notes) so proposals fit the existing roadmap and reuse its numbering/naming. Choose any existing wN using available capacity, dependency locality, and collision avoidance; every worker is general-purpose, and prior milestone topics do not create a specialty or ownership claim. Propose a new wN only when more independent queue capacity is useful. Also check wN/done/ and any nested done/ folders (find .pm -type d -name done) for milestones that already shipped the same capability — read their titles/READMEs before proposing, and drop or reshape any candidate that duplicates completed work instead of proposing it fresh.
  4. Discuss & decompose. Talk the topic through with the user: pressure-test scope, surface dependencies and risks, and break it into candidate tasks, each with a rough estimate and depends_on links.
  5. Size and gate each cluster of work using /pm's sizing rule and milestone quality gate. Undersized work → propose an inbox note instead of a milestone, and say so. Work that fails the quality gate → mark it not meaningful, do not propose it as a milestone, and suggest a better-scoped alternative.
  6. Emit the proposal as text only. Give the full detail first: the target workstream, each proposed milestone (task table + definition of done + source + goal linkage + expected outcome + why-now rationale) and/or inbox note, numbered in proposed priority order. Propose implementation tasks only: /pm appends the standing closing tasks (Surface parity when the milestone is feature dev/a fix touching the public CLI/SDK surface, then Simplify, then Test coverage, then Closeout) itself when it materializes, so do not include them — but do flag in the proposal whether you expect Surface parity to apply, so /pm and the user aren't guessing. Close with a "Summary (priority order)" section: a numbered list of every candidate (milestones and inbox notes together) using the same numbers as above — one line each: N. <title> (wN, ~size) — one-line outcome — so the user can scan and pick by number without rereading the detail. Do not write files.
  7. Hand off to /pm. End by giving the exact /pm command(s) to materialize the proposal, e.g.:
    • /pm new milestone w1 <title> (then the tasks), or
    • /pm add w1 <idea> for sub-hour work, or
    • /pm promote w1/NNN to promote an existing inbox note.

Topic

$ARGUMENTS

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

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.