brainstorming
Skill19 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Collaborative design methodology for creative work. Use before research or planning when requirements are unclear, multiple approaches exist, or the idea needs exploration. Refines ideas through progressive questioning.
190 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXtheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravitytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ainurdev/mystical-assistanttheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-triotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- alunadev/ald-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects 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.
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-code-review
中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈
Also in 8 projects that use this
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化
Also in 8 projects that use this
ryanportfolioSkilladdskill
Create, import, update, or install repo or personal skills: runtime ownership, resources, discovery checks.
Also in 6 projects that use this
ryanportfolioSkillapply-firmware
Bring current folder (plain folder, existing repo, old or partial firmware copy) up to full Harness Firmware in place. Mirror external repo → adopt-repo.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +2 more from Leodorareluctant259
- +6 more from ryanportfolio
Other versions190 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 190
- obra/superpowers★ 314ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- vudovn/ag-kit★ 8.2ksame name
- vudovn/antigravity-kit★ 8.2ksame name
- JetBrains/thinkrail★ 7.9ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6ksame name
- microsoft/FluidFramework★ 4.9ksame name
- BetterTyped/react-zoom-pan-pinch★ 1.9ksame name
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8ksame name
180 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.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- documenting-decisionsSkill
- finishing-workSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- implementing-plansSkill
- parallel-agentsSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- researching-codebaseSkill
- research-plan-implementSkill
- reviewing-codeSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- synthesizing-researchSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 170 edited versions we read keep these.
11
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 43
Ask questions one at a time using AskUserQuestion:
- Distinctive: line 67
Prefer multiple-choice questions: when possible. Open-ended is fine for exploration, but specific choices accelerate understanding.
- Distinctive: line 74
After understanding the idea, present 2-3 approaches:
- Distinctive: line 98
Use AskUserQuestion to get user's preference:
- Distinctive: line 107
Goal: Document the agreed design.
- Distinctive: line 109
After selecting an approach, document it:
- Distinctive: line 112
Validate each section: before continuing
- Distinctive: line 146
Start broad, narrow based on answers:
- Distinctive: line 165
When multiple valid choices exist:
- Distinctive: line 177
When requirements are vague:
- Distinctive: line 203
After brainstorming, guide to appropriate next step:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 170 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
Explore ideas collaboratively before committing to an approach.
Purpose
Jumping from vague ideas to implementation wastes effort. This skill provides structured exploration to refine concepts, surface constraints, and evaluate approaches before committing to research or planning. Good brainstorming prevents building the wrong thing.
When to Use
Use brainstorming when:
- Requirements are vague or incomplete
- Multiple valid approaches exist
- The problem space is unfamiliar
- Trade-offs need explicit discussion
- Creative design decisions are required
Skip brainstorming when:
- Requirements are clear and specific
- The approach is obvious
- This is a bug fix with known cause
- This is routine maintenance
The Three Phases
Phase 1: Understanding the Idea
Goal: Clarify what the user wants to accomplish.
Ask questions one at a time using AskUserQuestion:
- What problem are you solving?
- The underlying need, not the proposed solution
- Why does this matter?
- Who is this for?
- End users, developers, operators?
- What do they need?
- What does success look like?
- How will you know it works?
- What would make this valuable?
- What constraints exist?
- Technical limitations
- Time constraints
- Compatibility requirements
- What have you considered?
- Initial ideas or preferences
- Approaches to avoid
- Prior art to reference
Prefer multiple-choice questions when possible. Open-ended is fine for exploration, but specific choices accelerate understanding.
Phase 2: Exploring Approaches
Goal: Present options with trade-offs.
After understanding the idea, present 2-3 approaches:
## Approach A: [Name]
[2-3 sentences describing the approach]
**Pros**: [Key advantages]
**Cons**: [Key disadvantages]
**Best when**: [Situations where this shines]
## Approach B: [Name]
[2-3 sentences describing the approach]
**Pros**: [Key advantages]
**Cons**: [Key disadvantages]
**Best when**: [Situations where this shines]
## Approach C: [Name] (if applicable)
...
## Recommendation
[Which approach and why, based on stated constraints]Use AskUserQuestion to get user's preference:
- "Approach A (recommended)" - with brief rationale
- "Approach B" - with brief rationale
- "Explore further" - discuss more options
- "None of these" - gather more requirements
Phase 3: Design Documentation
Goal: Document the agreed design.
After selecting an approach, document it:
- Present design in sections (200-300 words each)
- Validate each section before continuing
- Adjust based on feedback
- Save final design to
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
Design document structure:
# Design: <Topic> (YYYY-MM-DD)
## Problem Statement
[What problem this solves]
## Chosen Approach
[Selected approach and rationale]
## Design Details
[Specific design decisions]
## Trade-offs Accepted
[What we're giving up and why it's acceptable]
## Open Questions
[Anything still unresolved]
## Next Steps
- [ ] Research phase (if needed)
- [ ] Planning phase
- [ ] ImplementationQuestioning Techniques
Funnel Questions
Start broad, narrow based on answers:
1. "What are you trying to build?" (broad)
2. "Which users will interact with this?" (narrowing)
3. "What's the most important interaction?" (specific)Assumption Surfacing
Make implicit assumptions explicit:
"I'm assuming this needs to integrate with the existing auth system.
Is that correct?"Trade-off Questions
When multiple valid choices exist:
"There's a trade-off here:
- Option A is simpler but less flexible
- Option B is more flexible but more complex
Which matters more for this use case?"Examples for Clarity
When requirements are vague:
"Can you give me an example of what you'd expect to happen
when a user does X?"YAGNI Principle
You Aren't Gonna Need It.
Ruthlessly apply this during brainstorming:
- Reject features "for later"
- Question every "nice to have"
- Focus on the minimum viable solution
- Complexity can be added later; removing it is hard
User: "We should also add support for X in case we need it"
Response: "Let's focus on the core need first. We can add X
later if it becomes necessary. What's the minimum we need now?"Transition to Next Phase
After brainstorming, guide to appropriate next step:
If design is complete and validated:
"Design documented at docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
Ready to proceed?"
- "Start research" → /rpikit:researching-codebase
- "Create implementation plan" → /rpikit:writing-plans
- "Continue brainstorming" → More explorationIf more investigation needed:
"The design needs more context about [topic].
Recommend research phase to investigate before planning."Integration with RPI Workflow
Brainstorming is an optional pre-phase:
[Brainstorming] → Research → Plan → Implement
^
Optional when requirements unclearBrainstorming output (design document) feeds into research or planning.
Anti-Patterns
Skipping to Solutions
Wrong: "Let's build X using Y framework" Right: "What problem are we solving? Who is it for?"
Analysis Paralysis
Wrong: Endless exploration without converging Right: Time-box exploration, make decisions
Gold Plating
Wrong: Designing every possible feature Right: YAGNI - minimum viable solution first
Ignoring Constraints
Wrong: Designing without considering limitations Right: Surface constraints early, design within them
Monologue Design
Wrong: Presenting complete design without validation Right: Incremental presentation with checkpoints
Checklist Before Proceeding
- Problem statement clear
- Success criteria defined
- Constraints identified
- Multiple approaches considered
- Trade-offs discussed
- YAGNI applied ruthlessly
- Design documented (if proceeding to plan)
- Next phase identified
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
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.

