20 added, 8 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: brainstorm
description: Decompose a problem, feature, or goal into candidate ADRs and plan items for a documentation-led repo — one decision per ADR, dependency edges, suggested ordering. Proposes drafts for review and writes nothing until approved. Use when the user says "brainstorm ADRs", "break this down into decisions", "what ADRs do we need for X", "plan out the work", or invokes /brainstorm.
---
# brainstorm
Turn a fuzzy problem into a structured set of candidate ADRs and plan
items. This skill is **generative and read/propose-only** — it never
writes ADRs or plan files directly. On approval it hands each candidate
to the **new-adr** and **new-plan** skills.
## Step 0 — Preconditions and context
1. Confirm the repo is bootstrapped (or note that the output can seed a
fresh run of the **bootstrap** skill).
2. Read `CONVENTIONS.md` for ADR shape and lifecycle, and skim
`INDEX.md` + existing ADRs so candidates don't duplicate or
contradict what already exists, and so dependencies point at real
ADRs.
## Step 0.5 — Assessment (run first)
Run the shared assessment protocol before decomposing:
- - **Opt-out gate first.** Ask whether to run the assessment or go
- straight to decomposing. Recommend **running** it when the request
- arrived with little or no context; recommend **skipping** when the goal
- and scope are already clear.
+ - **Depth selector first.** Ask how deep this assessment should go:
+ **express** — every choice takes its recommended default; only
+ questions with no derivable default (the free-text essentials) are
+ still asked; **guided** — only the questions marked high-impact
+ below, plus the free-text essentials; **full** — every question
+ below. If the repo's `CONVENTIONS.md` records an `Assessment depth:`,
+ pre-select it as the recommended option — the selector always
+ appears; a recorded depth is never applied silently. Otherwise
+ recommend **full** when the request arrived with little or no
+ context and **express** when it is already fully specified. At any
+ question the operator may answer "defaults from here" or "go
+ deeper"; honour the switch immediately.
+
- Ask the questions below **one at a time**, each with a **recommended
option** and a one-line reason; wait for each answer.
- Use **structured selection** (single- or multiple-choice). If the host
exposes a structured single-/multi-select question tool, use it and
mark the recommended option; otherwise list options A/B/C in plain text
and name the recommended one. Use **free text only** where an
enumerable set is impossible (e.g. the goal statement).
- **The operator decides.** Never proceed past a question without an
answer, and never guess scope when invoked with no context.
Questions (skip any the request already answers):
- 1. **Goal / problem** — free text (the unavoidable open answer) if not
- already given.
+ 1. **Goal / problem** — free text (the unavoidable open answer; asked
+ at every depth) if not already given.
2. **Output** — candidate ADRs only, or ADRs + plan items.
*Recommended: ADRs + plan items.*
- 3. **Depth** — quick (top candidates) or thorough (full decomposition).
- *Recommended: quick first, expand on request.*
+ 3. **Decomposition depth** — quick (top candidates) or thorough (full
+ decomposition). *Recommended: quick first, expand on request.*
+
+ No question here is marked high-impact — a guided run behaves like
+ express for this skill.
This skill still **writes nothing** until you approve the outline.
## Step 1 — Understand the problem
Ask for the goal/feature/problem if not given. Probe for scope
boundaries, constraints, and the regulatory/quality concerns that
matter for this repo. Do not start decomposing until the goal is clear.
## Step 2 — Decompose
Produce a candidate list. For each candidate ADR:
- Proposed number (next available, contiguous), working title, shape
(capability vs. technology if the repo splits).
- One-line scope — the single decision it captures.
- Dependencies on other candidates or existing ADRs.
**One decision per ADR.** If a candidate bundles several decisions,
split it and say why. If a candidate is really an existing ADR needing
revision, say that instead of proposing a new number.
## Step 3 — Order the work
Propose a plan ordering (which `plan/todo/` items, in what sequence)
respecting the dependency edges. Note where work can parallelise (useful
input for the **agent-wave** skill).
## Step 4 — Review and hand off
Present the full set as a reviewable outline (candidates + dependencies
+ ordering). Take edits. **Write nothing yet.** Once the user approves,
create them by invoking the **new-adr** skill per candidate and the
**new-plan** skill per
queued item — or hand the approved outline to those skills.
Guardrail: if the problem is too vague to decompose without inventing
requirements, say so and ask for more, rather than producing
speculative ADRs.