flow-brainstorm
Skill1 starsChanged 47 days agoMITView on GitHub
Collaborative idea exploration that ends in a design sketch. Use when the outcome or approach is still open, requirements are vague, or options need comparing. Hands off to `flow-prototype` or `flow-plan`.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- flow-a11ySkill
- flow-adversarial-reviewSkill
- flow-animateSkill
- flow-apiSkill
- flow-benchmarkSkill
- flow-commitSkill
- flow-data-migrateSkill
- flow-depsSkill
- flow-designSkill
- flow-diagnoseSkill
- flow-docsSkill
- flow-git-fixSkill
- flow-handoffSkill
- flow-migrateSkill
- flow-observeSkill
- flow-onboardSkill
- flow-orchestrateSkill
- flow-planSkill
- flow-pr-fixSkill
- flow-prototypeSkill
- flow-prune-agent-setupSkill
- flow-redesignSkill
- flow-refactorSkill
- flow-releaseSkill
- flow-repo-briefSkill
- flow-reviewSkill
- flow-shipSkill
- flow-simplifySkill
- flow-specializeSkill
- flow-stylesSkill
- flow-testSkill
- flow-triageSkill
- flow-uiSkill
- flow-verifySkill
- flow-workSkill
- flow-write-skillSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 28
Write a concise design sketch: outcome, non-goals, chosen direction, alternatives with reasons, key boundaries, open assumptions, and what …
- Very specific: line 53
Use flow-prototype for an open question or flow-plan when the design is ready.
≈ “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
Brainstorm
Develop the idea with the user. Spend questions only on uncertainty that changes the result; exploring is not a commitment to build or operate anything.
Process
- Restate the intended outcome, constraints and non-goals. Read relevant source or supplied artifacts before proposing incompatible stacks or architecture.
- Rank unknowns by dependency and resolve the one that changes the others first. Ask one question at a time, with a recommendation and a real tradeoff. Don't seek agreement on details the user already decided.
- Offer meaningfully different approaches. Compare behavior, complexity, operating effort, reversibility and cost. Label estimates; never invent latency, budgets or adoption numbers.
- Stress-test the strongest options with concrete user and failure scenarios. Use a skeptic panel for consequential independent questions when delegation is available and authorized; otherwise apply the lenses yourself. No fixed quota of objections.
- Pick the smallest experiment that resolves the next uncertainty:
flow-prototypefor an experiential or technical question, source research for a factual one. Keep exploration open when the user still wants surprise. - Write a concise design sketch: outcome, non-goals, chosen direction, alternatives with reasons, key boundaries, open assumptions, and what evidence would change the decision.
Modes
- Collaborative: expand and refine with the user, following their responses and taste.
- Adversarial: on request or for a consequential decision, challenge assumptions with concrete counterexamples and update when evidence changes.
Disagreement is not a contest: a plausible objection is a hypothesis to investigate, not a blocker.
Anti-patterns
- Ten superficially different versions of one idea.
- Fabricated precision or trend names in place of actual constraints.
- Demanding certainty before a cheap reversible experiment.
- Ending with a permission question when planning or implementation is already requested.
Done when
- The user has a useful direction or a clear experiment, with assumptions exposed.
- Tradeoffs tie to the intended outcome and existing constraints.
- The next step is concrete without pretending open questions are settled.
Use flow-prototype for an open question or flow-plan when the design is ready; continue into
already authorized work without an artificial pause.
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.

