brainstorm-first
Skill68 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Compare practical options and recommend one before implementation. Use when the user asks to brainstorm, wants alternatives or UI concepts to choose from, or asks for a comparison before any change is made; a decision the agent can settle during normal work proceeds without it.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agents-md-generatorSkill
- debugging-workflowSkill
- design-system-generatorSkill
- docker-local-devSkill
- documentation-guidelinesSkill
- laravel-11-12-app-guidelinesSkill
- laravel-13-app-guidelinesSkill
- office-web-ui-systemSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- project-development-mindsetSkill
- run-reviewable-subtask-loopSkill
- testing-verificationSkill
- ui-ux-concept-implementationSkill
- vps-docker-traefik-deploySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 12
Run in the main conversation by default.
- Distinctive: line 20
Ask a focused question only when the missing answer prevents a useful comparison.
- Distinctive: line 30
Use comparable criteria, and recommend one with a short rationale.
- Distinctive: line 44
Treat concept previews as references until production asset use is intended and authorized.
≈ “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 First
Turn uncertainty into a useful decision. Compare approaches against the user's actual goal and constraints, and challenge an impractical request with concrete evidence.
Delegation
Run in the main conversation by default. Delegation can increase usage: obtain explicit approval for the proposed agent count and scope before using subagents. Reuse that approval within its bounds; ask again before expanding the approved count or scope.
Investigate enough to compare
Inspect supplied artifacts, relevant project sources, and authoritative documentation before asking for facts already available. Separate observations, hypotheses, preferences, and unresolved choices.
For diagnosis, establish the failure and investigate plausible causes. Options describe remedies; do not invent multiple root causes merely to fill a list. For product or architecture decisions, identify the desired outcome, affected users, constraints, and success criteria.
Ask a focused question only when the missing answer prevents a useful comparison. Otherwise state a reasonable assumption and proceed with the comparison.
Present useful alternatives
Honor the requested number of options. Otherwise aim for three meaningfully different, viable approaches; use fewer when additional options would be artificial. For each, explain:
- the approach and how it addresses the goal;
- its main benefit, cost, limitation, and prerequisite;
- the evidence and uncertainty that could change the decision.
Use comparable criteria, and recommend one with a short rationale. Give numerical scores only when requested or when an agreed measurement rubric makes them useful. Do not invent precision for subjective judgments.
Respect the decision boundary
When the user requested options for selection, present the comparison and wait before implementation. Read-only investigation and requested temporary previews are allowed during that phase. If the user already authorized choosing and implementing the best approach, explain the choice and continue within that scope. Once an approach is selected, implement it.
For a requested hybrid, reconcile the actual conflicts and continue once the direction is clear.
UI concepts
Inspect the existing product, supplied references, content, and design system. Keep concepts comparable in functional scope and content while varying meaningful visual or interaction choices.
When visual previews are requested, use an available image or rendering tool, inspect the results, and present each direction with its tradeoffs. If the requested preview cannot be produced, explain the limitation, provide useful concept descriptions, and obtain a decision before substituting a deliverable that changes the requested result.
Treat concept previews as references until production asset use is intended and authorized. Preserve the selected reference when later comparison needs it.
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.

