session-brainstorm
Skill3 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user says "let's brainstorm" or "let's think about", or brings an idea that is not yet a task. Explores intent and options in conversation, ends with a short design the user approves, captures it as a work item, then routes to implementation or to /session-research-design.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- security-liability-auditSkill
- session-add-taskSkill
- session-debugSkill
- session-delegationSkill
- session-gatekeeperSkill
- session-groomSkill
- session-initSkill
- session-nextSkill
- session-post-implementationSkill
- session-releaseSkill
- session-repairSkill
- session-research-designSkill
- session-task-planningSkill
- session-verifySkill
- update-architectureSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
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 17
One question per message: Prefer multiple choice when the options are known.
- Very specific: line 22
Nothing leaves this skill without a captured work item: Every path that continues past a spike allocates identity first, through …
- Very specific: line 43
Do not design it here. Frame the problem with the user, capture the framed problem with /session-add-task so the work has an identity …
- Distinctive: line 48
When in doubt between two paths, take the larger one.
- Distinctive: line 53
Read the current state first: files, docs, recent commits.
- Distinctive: line 54
If the request describes several independent pieces, say so before refining any of them, and help the user decide which piece comes first.
- Distinctive: line 57
Remove features that do not serve the purpose from every option you present.
- Distinctive: line 66
Do not propose unrelated refactoring.
- Distinctive: line 67
Ask whether the design looks right, and wait for the answer.
≈ “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
Session Brainstorm
Turn an idea into a decision the user has approved, before anything is built.
Open with one sentence saying what you are about to do and what it will produce.
Rules
- Nothing is implemented until the user has approved a design. This holds for a two-sentence change as much as for a subsystem. The size of the design scales with the task; the approval does not.
- One question per message. Prefer multiple choice when the options are known. Let each answer shape the next question.
- Options come with a recommendation. Present two or three approaches with their trade-offs and say which one you recommend and why.
- Classify out loud. Say which path the request is on, so the user can override it.
- Nothing leaves this skill without a captured work item. Every path that continues past a
spike allocates identity first, through
/session-add-task, which writes the record with the runtime. Capture is not permission: the item lands incaptured,selectrefuses it by name, and the user's approval of the design is what makes it acceptable — not the fact that a record now exists.
Three paths
Classify the request before the first question, and say the classification.
- Spike. A feasibility question: "can we", "is it possible", "quick and dirty is fine". The output is an answer, not code to keep. Say what you will try in two or three sentences, get a nod, find out as cheaply as correctness allows, and report a recommendation. Anything built is labelled throwaway.
- Bounded. A well-scoped change to a flow that already exists in the repo: a flag, a small
endpoint, a one-file fix. Ask the questions that matter, present a short design in chat
(approach, files touched, how it will be tested), and stop until the user says yes. Then capture
it with
/session-add-task— the design becomes the record's interpreted intent and the approved behaviour becomes its scope — and implement against that identity, or leave it captured if it is for later. - Architectural. A new subsystem, a new project, or a change to how components fit together.
Do not design it here. Frame the problem with the user, capture the framed problem with
/session-add-taskso the work has an identity before anyone researches it, then hand that identity to/session-research-design, which produces the research report and the plan against it.
When in doubt between two paths, take the larger one. Complexity found mid-task moves the work up a path; say so when it happens.
Understanding the idea
- Read the current state first: files, docs, recent commits.
- If the request describes several independent pieces, say so before refining any of them, and help the user decide which piece comes first.
- Focus on purpose, constraints, and what success looks like.
- Remove features that do not serve the purpose from every option you present.
Presenting a design
- Scale each part to its difficulty: a few sentences where it is straightforward, a short paragraph where it is not.
- Cover the approach, the files touched, how it will be tested, and what it deliberately leaves out.
- Where existing code has a problem the work must touch, include the targeted fix in the design. Do not propose unrelated refactoring.
- Ask whether the design looks right, and wait for the answer.
Capturing what came out
/session-add-task writes the record; this skill supplies what goes in it, and the distinction it
must preserve is the one this conversation is uniquely able to make:
original_request— the user's own words that opened the brainstorm, verbatim. Not the refined version you arrived at together.- Interpreted intent — what you understood, including what you removed from the idea and why.
- Scope — the approved behaviour, in terms the user would recognize as what they asked for.
- Provenance —
origin: "user", the actor, and the capture time. No[auto]: the user was here for this. - Open questions — anything the design left unsettled, in the body. A brainstorm that ended in agreement can still have them.
Report the allocated SEQ-NNN and say plainly that it is captured, not accepted.
Handoff
- Spike: report the recommendation. Done — a throwaway answer is not a work item. Capture only the follow-up work the answer revealed, if any.
- Bounded, approved: capture with
/session-add-task, then implement against that identity, or leave it captured for later. - Architectural: capture with
/session-add-task, then/session-research-designagainst that identity.
Derived from the brainstorming skill in superpowers by Jesse Vincent (MIT); see
THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md. Chain context: references/workflow-overview.md.
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.

