git:20260706.ad588a8 to git:20260713.f2e4d5a

6 added, 19 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: brainstorming

description: "Use this BEFORE any creative or feature work: building a new feature, adding functionality, changing behavior, or making a nontrivial design decision. Turns the user's request into a validated design — recorded as a spec-graph task-spec — before any implementation. Do not skip this because a change looks small."

---

# Brainstorming

## Brainstorm before you build

- Before starting any creative or feature work — a new feature, added functionality, a behavioral

change, a nontrivial design decision — stop and run this workflow before writing implementation code.

- The aim: turn the request into a validated design, recorded as a spec-graph `task-spec`, that the user

has explicitly approved — not a guess you implement and hope lands.

- Never implement during brainstorming. If you catch yourself opening a source file to make a change

before the design is approved, stop.

## Anti-pattern: "this is too small to need this"

Every request goes through this, however small it looks. A one-line config change and a new subsystem

both benefit from a few minutes of "what does the user actually want and why" — that is where wrong

assumptions get caught cheaply. Scale the *depth* to the task; never skip the workflow entirely.

## The workflow

1. **Orient.** Use the spec-graph skill's tools first — `spec_grep`/`spec_get`/`spec_graph` — to find

what the project already says about the area; read code second, to confirm details.

2. **Scope check.** If the request bundles multiple independent features or subsystems, say so and

brainstorm them one at a time (or in parallel sub-sessions, the user's call) — don't blend unrelated

decisions into one task-spec.

3. **Open a task-spec.** As soon as you understand roughly what's being asked, `spec_create` a

`task-spec` (id, title, status: draft, parent: the nearest relevant module) to hold the design as it

develops. This file is the one artifact — update it live as decisions land; don't also keep a separate

scratch doc. This works even in a project with no existing spec graph: a `task-spec` only needs

frontmatter `id` and `type` to be a valid spec, no pre-existing graph required — don't skip this step

just because nothing else in the project is specced yet.

- 4. **Clarify.** Ask what you need via `ask_user_question`. Its own guidance applies: batch related

- questions into one call (up to 4), put a recommended option first, and don't chain calls

- back-to-back — resolve a full round, update the task-spec with what you learned, and only open a new

- round if the answers raised a genuinely new question. If the host reports no UI (`ask_user_question`

- returns "not available"), state your best-guess assumptions explicitly in the task-spec instead of

- blocking.

+ 4. **Clarify.** Ask what you need via `ask_user_question`, composing rounds per the

+ **asking-user-questions** concept skill — read it before the first round. Resolve a full round,

+ update the task-spec with what you learned, and only open a new round if the answers raised a

+ genuinely new question. Per that concept's degradation norms, skipped questions or a host with no

+ UI are not blockers: record your best-guess assumptions in the task-spec, explicitly marked

+ unconfirmed, and continue.

5. **Propose approaches.** Once the ask is clear, write 2-3 approaches into the task-spec with

trade-offs and a recommendation. When approaches are easiest to compare side by side, ask via a

single-select `ask_user_question` with each approach as an option (label = approach name, description

= its trade-off) instead of prose alone.

6. **Present the design.** Write it into the task-spec in sections scaled to their complexity; confirm

with the user as each section lands, not only at the end.

7. **Self-review.** Before asking for final sign-off, reread the task-spec for: placeholders/TBDs,

sections that contradict each other, scope that's actually multiple task-specs, and ambiguous

requirements — fix what you find, don't just flag it.

8. **Promote.** When the design settles a boundary, contract, or decision that belongs in a durable

spec, fold it into the relevant module's `SPEC.md` now — `spec_create` for a new module, `spec_update`

for its frontmatter (draft → active as it firms up), `edit` for prose. Run `spec_validate` after

structural changes.

9. **Final review, then build.** Ask the user to review the (now-promoted) design once more. Once

approved, implement directly against it — there is no separate plan-writing step here. Keep the

task-spec and the durable specs honest as the code lands, and retire the task-spec once **the work

itself** is done, not merely once the design was promoted.

- ## Working with `ask_user_question`

- - This tool batches: up to 4 multiple-choice questions per call, 2-4 options each, a free-text

- fallback row on every question (additive alongside the checks on multi-select), an always-available

- Skip. It is not a one-question-at-a-time

- chat turn — group what you need into a round, and don't call it again immediately after with a trivial

- follow-up.

- - Always put your recommended option first and label it "(Recommended)" when you have one.

- - Use `options[].preview` (markdown) when a concrete comparison — code, a config, an ASCII mockup — is

- clearer shown than described.

- - A user who skips or leaves questions unanswered is not a blocker: record the resulting assumptions in

- the task-spec, explicitly marked unconfirmed, and continue.

## What a good task-spec looks like

- Scoped to one piece of work — if it's accreting unrelated decisions, split it.

- States the request, the decision(s) made and why, the approaches considered and why they were or

weren't picked, and anything the user explicitly deferred or declined to answer.

- Gets promoted, not copied: once a decision belongs in a module's `SPEC.md`, move it there and

reference it from the task-spec rather than keeping two copies that can drift.