john/claude-engineering-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: add leverage check to brainstorm skill

Browse Source 
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.
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-15 10:31:48 -07:00
parent 4d80a59e51
commit 01002450cd
1 changed files with 7 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ Before generating approaches, challenge the request to catch misframing. Match d
- What user or business outcome actually matters here? - What user or business outcome actually matters here?
- What happens if we do nothing? - 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? - 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: **Deep** — Standard questions plus:
- What durable capability should this create in 6-12 months? - 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. 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: For each approach, provide:
- Brief description (2-3 sentences) - Brief description (2-3 sentences)
- Pros and cons - Pros and cons
@@ -222,6 +228,7 @@ Before finalizing, check:
- Do any requirements depend on something claimed to be out of scope? - Do any requirements depend on something claimed to be out of scope?
- Are any unresolved items actually product decisions rather than planning questions? - Are any unresolved items actually product decisions rather than planning questions?
- Did implementation details leak in when they shouldn't have? - 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. If planning would need to invent product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria, the brainstorm is not complete yet.