pm-brainstorming
Skill1 starsChanged 6 days agoUnlicenseView on GitHub
Brainstorming and structured ideation for Product Management (PM). Use when turning rough product ideas into well-defined specifications, exploring problem spaces, or clarifying vague requirements and success criteria.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- violazhu/claude-skilltheir own version, first seen May 18, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- violazhu/claude-skill★ 0same 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 repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- ad-copy-writerSkill
- ae-inspect-describeSkill
- algorithmic-artSkill
- animation-directorSkill
- assembly-guideSkill
- brainstorming-and-ideatingSkill
- brainstorming-research-ideasSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- brief-to-tasksSkill
- canvas-designSkill
- cli-designSkill
- cli-output-hierarchySkill
- commit-messageSkill
- craft-uiSkill
- creative-directorSkill
- design-briefSkill
- design-flowSkill
- design-mock-auditSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-system-patternsSkill
- design-tokensSkill
- deslopifySkill
- diagnoseSkill
- diagramming-app-routesSkill
- doc-restructureSkill
- eval-criticSkill
- formatting-open-markdownsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- frontend-slidesSkill
- gdocs-tab-writerSkill
- gemini-apiSkill
- gif-creationSkill
- github_repo_researchSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- hallmarkSkill
- handoffSkill
- html-presentationSkill
- humanizerSkill
- i-have-adhdSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- information-architectureSkill
- install-skill-from-githubSkill
- markdown-output-hierarchySkill
- marketing-psychologySkill
- merge-latestSkill
- modern-web-performanceSkill
- motion-designSkill
- pdf-readerSkill
- pm-discovery-brainstormSkill
- product-marketingSkill
- prototypeSkill
- pull-requestSkill
- ralph_loopSkill
- react-best-practicesSkill
- review-loopSkill
- sandbox-explainerSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-optSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
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 21
If you can't articulate why users need this and what success looks like, you're not ready to spec.
- Distinctive: line 37
Check PM memory (activeContext.md, insights.md)
- Distinctive: line 38
Look for existing specs or research on the topic
- Distinctive: line 165
If you find yourself:
- Distinctive: line 187
After brainstorming, produce a spec skeleton ready for the spec-writer to expand:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
PM Brainstorming
Overview
Help turn rough product ideas into well-defined specs through collaborative dialogue. Don't jump to solutions — explore the problem space first.
Core principle: Understand what to build BEFORE defining how to build it.
The Iron Law
NO SPEC WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING PURPOSE AND CONSTRAINTSIf you can't articulate why users need this and what success looks like, you're not ready to spec.
When to Use
ALWAYS before writing a spec when:
- Requirements feel vague (3+ unknowns)
- Multiple approaches seem valid
- Success criteria unclear
- User problem not well-defined
- Stakeholder alignment uncertain
The Process
Phase 1: Check Existing Context
Before asking questions:
- Check PM memory (activeContext.md, insights.md)
- Look for existing specs or research on the topic
- Review prior decisions that might constrain this feature
Phase 2: Explore the Idea (One Question at a Time)
Use AskUserQuestion tool — multiple choice options provide better UX than open-ended questions.
Ask questions sequentially, not all at once.
Question 1: Problem "What user problem does this solve?" Options:
- A. [Inferred problem from context]
- B. [Alternative problem framing]
- C. Something else (describe)
Question 2: Users "Who are the primary users?" Options based on context (e.g., existing user types, personas from insights.md)
Question 3: Success "How will we know this works well?" Options:
- A. Measurable metric (e.g., "adoption rate > 50%")
- B. User behavior change (e.g., "users complete task faster")
- C. Business outcome (e.g., "reduces churn by X%")
- D. Let me define custom criteria
Question 4: Constraints "What constraints should we know about?" Options:
- A. Timeline (must ship by date)
- B. Technical (platform limitations, dependencies)
- C. Resource (team capacity)
- D. Business (budget, partnerships, compliance)
- E. No major constraints
Question 5: Scope "What's explicitly OUT of scope?" Options:
- A. [Adjacent feature that might seem related]
- B. [Enhancement that can wait for v2]
- C. Let me list exclusions
- D. Nothing specific yet
Phase 3: Explore Approaches
Always present 2-3 product approaches with trade-offs:
## Approaches
### Option A: [Name] (Recommended)
**Approach**: [Brief description]
**Pros**: [Benefits]
**Cons**: [Drawbacks]
**Effort**: [Rough size: Small/Medium/Large]
**Why recommended**: [Reasoning]
### Option B: [Name]
**Approach**: [Brief description]
**Pros**: [Benefits]
**Cons**: [Drawbacks]
**Effort**: [Rough size]
### Option C: [Name]
**Approach**: [Brief description]
**Pros**: [Benefits]
**Cons**: [Drawbacks]
**Effort**: [Rough size]
Which direction feels right?Phase 4: Present Incrementally
Once approach chosen, present the spec skeleton section by section:
- Problem Statement — "Does this capture the problem accurately?"
- User Stories — "Do these stories cover the key use cases?"
- Requirements — "Are the P0/P1/P2 priorities right?"
- Success Metrics — "Are these the right things to measure?"
After each section, validate before continuing.
Key Principles
One Question at a Time
YES: "What problem does this solve?"
[Wait for answer]
"Who are the target users?"
[Wait for answer]
NO: "What problem does this solve, who will use it,
what are the constraints, and success criteria?"Multiple Choice Preferred
YES: "Which approach fits better?
A. Minimal MVP — ship in 2 weeks
B. Full solution — ship in 6 weeks
C. Phased rollout — MVP then expand"
NO: "How do you want to approach this?"YAGNI for PMs
YES: "You mentioned analytics — is that needed for v1
or can we defer it?"
NO: Adding analytics, admin tools, and API access
because "we might need them later"Explore Before Committing
YES: Presenting 3 approaches with trade-offs
before asking which to pursue
NO: Jumping to the first solution that comes to mindRed Flags — STOP and Ask More Questions
If you find yourself:
- Speccing without knowing the problem
- Jumping to solutions (features, UI) before understanding needs
- Presenting one approach without alternatives
- Asking multiple questions at once
- Assuming you know what the user wants
- Not validating incrementally
STOP. Go back to Phase 2.
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
| "I know what they need" | Ask. You might be wrong. |
| "Multiple questions is faster" | Overwhelms. One at a time. |
| "One approach is obvious" | Present options. Let them choose. |
| "They'll say if it's wrong" | Validate incrementally. Don't assume. |
| "Details can wait" | Get details now. Assumptions cause rework. |
Output: Spec Skeleton
After brainstorming, produce a spec skeleton ready for the spec-writer to expand:
# [Feature Name] — Spec Skeleton
## Problem
[What problem this solves, for whom]
## Users
[Who will use this]
## Success Criteria
- [ ] [Criterion 1 — measurable]
- [ ] [Criterion 2 — measurable]
## Constraints
- [Constraint 1]
- [Constraint 2]
## Out of Scope
- [Explicitly excluded 1]
- [Explicitly excluded 2]
## Chosen Approach
[Which option and why]
## Key User Stories
- As a [user], I want [capability] so that [benefit]
## Open Questions
- [Remaining unknowns]After Brainstorming
Continue to spec writing: The spec-writer agent uses this skeleton to produce the full PRD.
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.

