brainstorming · diff
v1.0.1 to v1.0.2
46 added, 58 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: brainstorming
description: 'Use before creative product or engineering work when the user wants to design a feature, component, workflow, behavior change, or other solution whose goals, constraints, and tradeoffs need exploration before implementation.'
zh_description: "用于在实现前澄清创意型产品或工程需求，探索目标、约束、方案与取舍。"
- version: "1.0.1"
+ version: "1.0.2"
author: "seaworld008"
source: "in-house"
source_url: ""
tags: '["brainstorming", "planning", "workflow"]'
created_at: "2026-03-04"
- updated_at: "2026-08-10"
+ updated_at: "2026-09-06"
quality: 3
complexity: "intermediate"
---
# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
## When to Use
Use this skill before:
- building a new feature
- changing behavior in a meaningful way
- creating a new component or workflow
- turning a rough idea into an implementation-ready design
## Usage
- Recommended flow:
+ Use a short design discussion when consequential choices remain open.
+ If the user has already supplied a workable design and asked for implementation,
+ record the essential assumptions and proceed with the authorized work.
+ For small, reversible changes, a concise inline design is enough.
```text
- explore context
- -> ask one clarifying question at a time
- -> propose a few approaches
- -> present a design
- -> get approval before implementation
+ inspect current context
+ -> identify decisions that affect the outcome
+ -> resolve consequential gaps
+ -> state the chosen approach and acceptance checks
+ -> implement when authorized
```
- ## Overview
-
- Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
-
- Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
-
- <HARD-GATE>
- Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
- </HARD-GATE>
-
- ## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
-
- Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
-
- ## Checklist
+ ## Decision Boundaries
- You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
+ Ask for input when the answer changes the product goal, user experience,
+ public contract, data retention, or an irreversible action.
+ Use existing project patterns for routine implementation choices.
+ Continue independent research and preparation while a necessary answer is pending.
+ An explicit brainstorming-only request remains a discussion task.
- 1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
- 2. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
- 3. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
- 4. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
- 5. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
- 6. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
+ ## Practical Design Checklist
- ## Process Flow
+ 1. Read the relevant code, requirements, and previous decisions.
+ 2. State the problem, intended user, and observable success criteria.
+ 3. Identify only the uncertainties that materially affect the solution.
+ 4. Compare alternatives when there is a real tradeoff; do not manufacture options.
+ 5. Choose a small, coherent implementation and explain its main tradeoff.
+ 6. Record an enduring design document only when future work needs it.
+ 7. Continue into implementation if the user requested execution.
- ```dot
- digraph brainstorming {
- "Explore project context" [shape=box];
- "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
- "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
- "Present design sections" [shape=box];
- "User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
- "Write design doc" [shape=box];
- "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
+ ## Example
- "Explore project context" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
- "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
- "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
- "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
- "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
- "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
- "Write design doc" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill";
- }
+ ```text
+ Request: Add CSV export to the existing table.
+ Known: Current filters and columns define the exported data.
+ Decision: Reuse the existing authorized data-fetch path.
+ Check: Export filtered rows, escape CSV cells, preserve column order.
+ Clarify only if export scope or access requirements remain ambiguous.
```
- **The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
+ ## Handoff
+ Use a written plan when dependencies or scope need one.
+ Do not require a second plan or approval merely to invoke another skill.
+ Keep original user constraints and acceptance checks with the handoff.
+
## The Process
**Understanding the idea:**
- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
- Ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
- - Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
+ - Ask concise questions only for unresolved material choices; group closely related gaps when useful
- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
**Exploring approaches:**
- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
**Presenting the design:**
- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
- - Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
+ - Invite corrections without blocking already authorized implementation
- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
## After the Design
**Documentation:**
- - Write the validated design to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
+ - For substantial designs, save the durable decisions to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
- - Commit the design document to git
+ - Include the design with the task changes when a commit is requested
**Implementation:**
- - Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
- - Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
+ - Continue the requested implementation once consequential decisions are resolved
+ - Use writing-plans when the task needs an enduring plan; avoid forced skill chains
## Key Principles
- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
- - **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
- - **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
- - **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on
+ - **YAGNI** - Remove unnecessary features from designs
+ - **Explore alternatives** - Compare alternatives when they expose a real tradeoff
+ - **Incremental validation** - Confirm unresolved consequential choices; reuse existing authorization
- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense