brainstorm
Skill9 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub
Explore a vague problem as very different Directions, side by side, and file the ones you keep as Issues.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 155 edited versions we read keep these.
4
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 32
Write your reading of the problem in your own words, the constraints you take as fixed, and the four angles you will explore from:
- Distinctive: line 37
When the problem reads two ways that would lead to different Directions, ask that one question and wait.
- Distinctive: line 54
When two cards land on one Direction, merge them into one card, and send a fresh agent on one of their angles with every Direction already …
- Distinctive: line 94
When the Tracker keeps Issues in the repo, commit every Issue from the run in one commit, staged by name, on the branch you are on.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 155 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
Brainstorm
Turn a vague problem into Issues by diverging first: lay out very different Directions side by side, each from its own angle, so the set spreads rather than clusters around the first thought.
The input is the problem in plain words, or a reference to an Issue still too loose to grill. Read CONTEXT.md and the ADRs covering the area yourself.
Issues live in the repo's Tracker: carry out each operation on one — file, read, list, rewrite, set status, comment, link, close — as .agents/refs/tracker.md says, or as setup/LOCAL.md says when the repo has no ref.
The run writes Issues and nothing else. Step 7 names the command that continues each Issue, and the user types it.
Before the first message, read technical-writing/SKILL.md and follow it — /technical-writing does not load as a skill — and hold its bar for the opening, every card, and the closing pick. Every Issue holds its durable-document bar. The briefs you send helper agents are for agents and sit outside that bar.
Process
1. Map the code
Dispatch one skills:explorer with named questions: which parts of the code the problem touches, what they do today, and what limits them. Carry its report, never the files (ADR-0027); every fact from the code arrives through it, for the whole run. When the problem touches no code in this repository, the report says so and the run goes on.
Done when the report has landed.
2. Frame
Write your reading of the problem in your own words, the constraints you take as fixed, and the four angles you will explore from:
- How are other people solving this? — in every set, every pass. Its agent must search the web and name real tools and techniques that exist today.
- Three more, picked for this problem from the starter list — smallest change to what exists, build it the ideal way from scratch, reframe or avoid the problem, borrow from another field — or a problem-specific angle of your own where it gives a wider spread.
When the problem reads two ways that would lead to different Directions, ask that one question and wait. Otherwise go straight on: the user corrects the reading by replying to the set.
Done when every angle is named and no reading that would change the Directions is left open.
3. Fan out
Dispatch one general-purpose sub-agent per angle, all in parallel, on your own model and effort. Each brief carries the problem, the constraints, the explorer report, its angle, and this instruction: produce one Direction that differs as much as possible from the obvious answer, unbound by what the code does today. Keep each brief's examples inside its own angle: a tool or technique one brief names, no other brief names. Any agent may search the web when its Direction depends on an outside tool or technique, and names what it found as sources.
Each agent returns one card:
- Pitch — the Direction in one or two sentences.
- How it works
- What it costs — what changes: data, migrations, decision records superseded, tools renamed, risk of breakage. Never a time estimate in days or weeks.
- Best at
- Biggest risk
- Sources — links, when the agent used any.
When two cards land on one Direction, merge them into one card, and send a fresh agent on one of their angles with every Direction already on the table named for it to steer clear of.
Done when every agent has returned its card and no two cards share a Direction.
4. Present the set
In one message: your reading, the constraints, and the angles — on the first set, and again on any set where one of them changed — then the cards side by side, numbered continuously across the run so "go deeper on 2" names one card. Say in plain words, the first time, what a Direction, an angle, and a card are. Close with your pick and the reason. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.
End by naming the moves: keep one or more Directions, go deeper on one, combine two, widen with more angles, or stop.
Done when every card is shown and the pick carries its reason.
5. Loop
The user's reply picks the move:
- Deeper, combined, wider, or a correction to the reading or constraints — write the tighter brief, or reframe, and go back to step 3 with fresh agents.
- Keep, including your pick as written when it combines cards — go to step 6 with the kept Directions.
- Stop without a pick — go to step 6 with none kept.
Done when the user has kept Directions or stopped.
6. Write the Issues
Each kept Direction becomes its own Issue in needs-grilling, titled for the Direction. Starting from an Issue, the kept Direction with the lowest card number rewrites that Issue's body and sets its status; file every other kept Direction as a new Issue.
Fill the sections /validate-spec checks on a needs-grilling Issue. Write prose about behaviour and reasons; file paths, names from the code, and code blocks stay on the explorer report, since /validate-spec flags them on a needs-grilling Issue. Under a section name that is not plain words, such as Decisions (locked), add one line saying what the section holds.
- Motivation — the problem, why this Direction, links to the outside sources it relies on, and the title of each other Issue kept in this run.
- Goal
- Decisions (locked) — what the run settled about this Direction.
- Out of scope — every Direction shown that the user did not keep, each with the reason it was dropped.
- Open questions — the Direction's open points, where the next grilling session starts.
Stopping without a pick files one Issue in needs-grilling holding the problem: Motivation and Goal state the problem, Decisions (locked) holds the constraints you took as fixed, Out of scope says nothing is ruled out yet, and every Direction shown goes under Open questions. Starting from an Issue, rewrite its body instead: add those Directions to its Open questions, add the constraints you took as fixed to its Decisions (locked) where it lacks them, and keep the rest of its content.
Done when every kept Direction, or the stopped run, has its Issue in the Tracker.
7. Close
When the Tracker keeps Issues in the repo, commit every Issue from the run in one commit, staged by name, on the branch you are on. Leave every other working-tree change alone.
List each Issue, by its reference, with /grill-with-docs as the command that continues it. Then read retro/SKILL.md and follow it — /retro does not load as a skill.
Done when every Issue from the run is in the Tracker and committed where the Tracker keeps it in the repo, each is listed with its next command, and /retro has finished.
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 189
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27ksame name
- codeaholicguy/ai-devkit★ 1.7ksame name
- jtydhr88/ComfyTV★ 1.2ksame name
- event-driven-io/emmett★ 558same name
- ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm★ 517same name
- zaxbysauce/opencode-swarm★ 517same name
- automagik-dev/genie★ 345same name
- namastexlabs/automagik-genie★ 345same name
- bkywksj/knowledge-base★ 337same name
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 324same name
179 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use playtest-report, team-polish 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.
CoralGameSkillplaytest-report
Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis.
Also in 9 projects that use this
CoralGameSkillteam-polish
Orchestrate the polish team: coordinates performance-analyst, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to optimize, polish, and harden a feature or area for release quality.
Also in 11 projects that use this
lilangMaxSkillsoak-test
Generate a soak test protocol for extended play sessions. Defines what to observe, measure, and log during long play sessions to surface slow leaks, fatigue effects, and edge cases that only appear after sustained play. Primarily used in Polish and Release phases.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +9 more from CoralGame
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- verifySkill
- code-reviewSkill
- doctorSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- explainSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- hillclimbSkill
- implementSkill
- learn-habitsSkill
- prototypeSkill
- prSkill
- researchSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- retroSkill
- setupSkill
- simulate-first-usersSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- to-specSkill
- triageSkill
- validate-specSkill
- wayfinderSkill
- what-did-i-get-doneSkill
- whySkill
- writing-for-agentsSkill
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.

