From 01002450cd077b800a917625c5eb6d12da061d0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Trevin Chow Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2026 10:31:48 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] feat: add leverage check to brainstorm skill Add a highest-leverage-move question to the product pressure test, a challenger option in approach exploration, and a low-cost change check to the finalization checklist. --- plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md b/plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md index 5dbc94b..baac137 100644 --- a/plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md +++ b/plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ Before generating approaches, challenge the request to catch misframing. Match d - What user or business outcome actually matters here? - What happens if we do nothing? - Is there a nearby framing that creates more user value without more carrying cost? If so, what complexity does it add? +- Given the current project state, user goal, and constraints, what is the single highest-leverage move right now: the request as framed, a reframing, one adjacent addition, a simplification, or doing nothing? +- Favor moves that compound value, reduce future carrying cost, or make the product meaningfully more useful or compelling +- Use the result to sharpen the conversation, not to bulldoze the user's intent **Deep** — Standard questions plus: - What durable capability should this create in 6-12 months? @@ -130,6 +133,9 @@ Use the platform's interactive question mechanism when available. Otherwise, pre If multiple plausible directions remain, propose **2-3 concrete approaches** based on research and conversation. Otherwise state the recommended direction directly. +When useful, include one deliberately higher-upside alternative: +- Identify what adjacent addition or reframing would most increase usefulness, compounding value, or durability without disproportionate carrying cost. Present it as a challenger option alongside the baseline, not as the default. Omit it when the work is already obviously over-scoped or the baseline request is clearly the right move. + For each approach, provide: - Brief description (2-3 sentences) - Pros and cons @@ -222,6 +228,7 @@ Before finalizing, check: - Do any requirements depend on something claimed to be out of scope? - Are any unresolved items actually product decisions rather than planning questions? - Did implementation details leak in when they shouldn't have? +- Is there a low-cost change that would make this materially more useful? If planning would need to invent product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria, the brainstorm is not complete yet.