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

feat: refactor brainstorm skill into requirements-first workflow

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-12 20:50:17 -07:00
parent 3d0f190097
commit 4d80a59e51
9 changed files with 276 additions and 285 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

275
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,16 +1,38 @@
---
name: ce:brainstorm
description: Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before planning implementation
description: 'Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before writing a right-sized requirements document and planning implementation. Use for feature ideas, problem framing, when the user says ''let''s brainstorm'', or when they want to think through options before deciding what to build. Also use when a user describes a vague or ambitious feature request, asks ''what should we build'', ''help me think through X'', presents a problem with multiple valid solutions, or seems unsure about scope or direction — even if they don''t explicitly ask to brainstorm.'
argument-hint: "[feature idea or problem to explore]"
---
# Brainstorm a Feature or Improvement
**Note: The current year is 2026.** Use this when dating brainstorm documents.
**Note: The current year is 2026.** Use this when dating requirements documents.
Brainstorming helps answer **WHAT** to build through collaborative dialogue. It precedes `/ce:plan`, which answers **HOW** to build it.
**Process knowledge:** Load the `brainstorming` skill for detailed question techniques, approach exploration patterns, and YAGNI principles.
The durable output of this workflow is a **requirements document**. In other workflows this might be called a lightweight PRD or feature brief. In compound engineering, keep the workflow name `brainstorm`, but make the written artifact strong enough that planning does not need to invent product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria.
This skill does not implement code. It explores, clarifies, and documents decisions for later planning or execution.
## Core Principles
1. **Assess scope first** - Match the amount of ceremony to the size and ambiguity of the work.
2. **Be a thinking partner** - Suggest alternatives, challenge assumptions, and explore what-ifs instead of only extracting requirements.
3. **Resolve product decisions here** - User-facing behavior, scope boundaries, and success criteria belong in this workflow. Detailed implementation belongs in planning.
4. **Keep implementation out of the requirements doc by default** - Do not include libraries, schemas, endpoints, file layouts, or code-level design unless the brainstorm itself is inherently about a technical or architectural change.
5. **Right-size the artifact** - Simple work gets a compact requirements document or brief alignment. Larger work gets a fuller document. Do not add ceremony that does not help planning.
6. **Apply YAGNI to carrying cost, not coding effort** - Prefer the simplest approach that delivers meaningful value. Avoid speculative complexity and hypothetical future-proofing, but low-cost polish or delight is worth including when its ongoing cost is small and easy to maintain.
## Interaction Rules
1. **Ask one question at a time** - Do not batch several unrelated questions into one message.
2. **Prefer single-select multiple choice** - Use single-select when choosing one direction, one priority, or one next step.
3. **Use multi-select rarely and intentionally** - Use it only for compatible sets such as goals, constraints, non-goals, or success criteria that can all coexist. If prioritization matters, follow up by asking which selected item is primary.
4. **Keep this workflow cross-platform** - Use a platform's interactive question mechanism when available; otherwise present numbered options in chat and wait for the user's reply.
## Output Guidance
- **Keep outputs concise** - Prefer short sections, brief bullets, and only enough detail to support the next decision.
## Feature Description
@@ -22,9 +44,16 @@ Do not proceed until you have a feature description from the user.
## Execution Flow
### Phase 0: Assess Requirements Clarity
### Phase 0: Resume, Assess, and Route
Evaluate whether brainstorming is needed based on the feature description.
#### 0.1 Resume Existing Work When Appropriate
If the user references an existing brainstorm topic or document, or there is an obvious recent matching `*-requirements.md` file in `docs/brainstorms/`:
- Read the document
- Confirm with the user before resuming: "Found an existing requirements doc for [topic]. Should I continue from this, or start fresh?"
- If resuming, summarize the current state briefly, continue from its existing decisions and outstanding questions, and update the existing document instead of creating a duplicate
#### 0.2 Assess Whether Brainstorming Is Needed
**Clear requirements indicators:**
- Specific acceptance criteria provided
@@ -33,71 +62,213 @@ Evaluate whether brainstorming is needed based on the feature description.
- Constrained, well-defined scope
**If requirements are already clear:**
Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to suggest: "Your requirements seem detailed enough to proceed directly to planning. Should I run `/ce:plan` instead, or would you like to explore the idea further?"
Keep the interaction brief. Confirm understanding and present concise next-step options rather than forcing a long brainstorm. Only write a short requirements document when a durable handoff to planning or later review would be valuable. Skip Phase 1.1 and 1.2 entirely — go straight to Phase 1.3 or Phase 3.
#### 0.3 Assess Scope
Use the feature description plus a light repo scan to classify the work:
- **Lightweight** - small, well-bounded, low ambiguity
- **Standard** - normal feature or bounded refactor with some decisions to make
- **Deep** - cross-cutting, strategic, or highly ambiguous
If the scope is unclear, ask one targeted question to disambiguate and then proceed.
### Phase 1: Understand the Idea
#### 1.1 Repository Research (Lightweight)
#### 1.1 Existing Context Scan
Run a quick repo scan to understand existing patterns:
Scan the repo before substantive brainstorming. Match depth to scope:
- Task compound-engineering:research:repo-research-analyst("Understand existing patterns related to: <feature_description>")
**Lightweight** — Search for the topic, check if something similar already exists, and move on.
Focus on: similar features, established patterns, CLAUDE.md guidance.
**Standard and Deep** — Two passes:
#### 1.2 Collaborative Dialogue
*Constraint Check* — Check project instruction files (`AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`) for workflow, product, or scope constraints that affect the brainstorm. If these add nothing, move on.
Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask questions **one at a time**.
*Topic Scan* — Search for relevant terms. Read the most relevant existing artifact if one exists (brainstorm, plan, spec, skill, feature doc). Skim adjacent examples covering similar behavior.
**Guidelines (see `brainstorming` skill for detailed techniques):**
If nothing obvious appears after a short scan, say so and continue. Do not drift into technical planning — avoid inspecting tests, migrations, deployment, or low-level architecture unless the brainstorm is itself about a technical decision.
#### 1.2 Product Pressure Test
Before generating approaches, challenge the request to catch misframing. Match depth to scope:
**Lightweight:**
- Is this solving the real user problem?
- Are we duplicating something that already covers this?
- Is there a clearly better framing with near-zero extra cost?
**Standard:**
- Is this the right problem, or a proxy for a more important one?
- 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?
**Deep** — Standard questions plus:
- What durable capability should this create in 6-12 months?
- Does this move the product toward that, or is it only a local patch?
#### 1.3 Collaborative Dialogue
Use the platform's interactive question mechanism when available. Otherwise, present numbered options in chat and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.
**Guidelines:**
- Ask questions **one at a time**
- Prefer multiple choice when natural options exist
- Start broad (purpose, users) then narrow (constraints, edge cases)
- Validate assumptions explicitly
- Ask about success criteria
- Prefer **single-select** when choosing one direction, one priority, or one next step
- Use **multi-select** only for compatible sets that can all coexist; if prioritization matters, ask which selected item is primary
- Start broad (problem, users, value) then narrow (constraints, exclusions, edge cases)
- Clarify the problem frame, validate assumptions, and ask about success criteria
- Make requirements concrete enough that planning will not need to invent behavior
- Surface dependencies or prerequisites only when they materially affect scope
- Resolve product decisions here; leave technical implementation choices for planning
- Bring ideas, alternatives, and challenges instead of only interviewing
**Exit condition:** Continue until the idea is clear OR user says "proceed"
**Exit condition:** Continue until the idea is clear OR the user explicitly wants to proceed.
### Phase 2: Explore Approaches
Propose **2-3 concrete approaches** based on research and conversation.
If multiple plausible directions remain, propose **2-3 concrete approaches** based on research and conversation. Otherwise state the recommended direction directly.
For each approach, provide:
- Brief description (2-3 sentences)
- Pros and cons
- Key risks or unknowns
- When it's best suited
Lead with your recommendation and explain why. Apply YAGNI—prefer simpler solutions.
Lead with your recommendation and explain why. Prefer simpler solutions when added complexity creates real carrying cost, but do not reject low-cost, high-value polish just because it is not strictly necessary.
Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask which approach the user prefers.
If one approach is clearly best and alternatives are not meaningful, skip the menu and state the recommendation directly.
### Phase 3: Capture the Design
If relevant, call out whether the choice is:
- Reuse an existing pattern
- Extend an existing capability
- Build something net new
Write a brainstorm document to `docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md`.
### Phase 3: Capture the Requirements
**Document structure:** See the `brainstorming` skill for the template format. Key sections: What We're Building, Why This Approach, Key Decisions, Open Questions.
Write or update a requirements document only when the conversation produced durable decisions worth preserving.
This document should behave like a lightweight PRD without PRD ceremony. Include what planning needs to execute well, and skip sections that add no value for the scope.
The requirements document is for product definition and scope control. Do **not** include implementation details such as libraries, schemas, endpoints, file layouts, or code structure unless the brainstorm is inherently technical and those details are themselves the subject of the decision.
**Required content for non-trivial work:**
- Problem frame
- Concrete requirements or intended behavior with stable IDs
- Scope boundaries
- Success criteria
**Include when materially useful:**
- Key decisions and rationale
- Dependencies or assumptions
- Outstanding questions
- Alternatives considered
- High-level technical direction only when the work is inherently technical and the direction is part of the product/architecture decision
**Document structure:** Use this template and omit clearly inapplicable optional sections:
```markdown
---
date: YYYY-MM-DD
topic: <kebab-case-topic>
---
# <Topic Title>
## Problem Frame
[Who is affected, what is changing, and why it matters]
## Requirements
- R1. [Concrete user-facing behavior or requirement]
- R2. [Concrete user-facing behavior or requirement]
## Success Criteria
- [How we will know this solved the right problem]
## Scope Boundaries
- [Deliberate non-goal or exclusion]
## Key Decisions
- [Decision]: [Rationale]
## Dependencies / Assumptions
- [Only include if material]
## Outstanding Questions
### Resolve Before Planning
- [Affects R1][User decision] [Question that must be answered before planning can proceed]
### Deferred to Planning
- [Affects R2][Technical] [Question that should be answered during planning or codebase exploration]
- [Affects R2][Needs research] [Question that likely requires research during planning]
## Next Steps
[If `Resolve Before Planning` is empty: `→ /ce:plan` for structured implementation planning]
[If `Resolve Before Planning` is not empty: `→ Resume /ce:brainstorm` to resolve blocking questions before planning]
```
For **Standard** and **Deep** brainstorms, a requirements document is usually warranted.
For **Lightweight** brainstorms, keep the document compact. Skip document creation when the user only needs brief alignment and no durable decisions need to be preserved.
For very small requirements docs with only 1-3 simple requirements, plain bullet requirements are acceptable. For **Standard** and **Deep** requirements docs, use stable IDs like `R1`, `R2`, `R3` so planning and later review can refer to them unambiguously.
When the work is simple, combine sections rather than padding them. A short requirements document is better than a bloated one.
Before finalizing, check:
- What would `ce:plan` still have to invent if this brainstorm ended now?
- 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?
If planning would need to invent product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria, the brainstorm is not complete yet.
Ensure `docs/brainstorms/` directory exists before writing.
**IMPORTANT:** Before proceeding to Phase 4, check if there are any Open Questions listed in the brainstorm document. If there are open questions, YOU MUST ask the user about each one using AskUserQuestion before offering to proceed to planning. Move resolved questions to a "Resolved Questions" section.
If a document contains outstanding questions:
- Use `Resolve Before Planning` only for questions that truly block planning
- If `Resolve Before Planning` is non-empty, keep working those questions during the brainstorm by default
- If the user explicitly wants to proceed anyway, convert each remaining item into an explicit decision, assumption, or `Deferred to Planning` question before proceeding
- Do not force resolution of technical questions during brainstorming just to remove uncertainty
- Put technical questions, or questions that require validation or research, under `Deferred to Planning` when they are better answered there
- Use tags like `[Needs research]` when the planner should likely investigate the question rather than answer it from repo context alone
- Carry deferred questions forward explicitly rather than treating them as a failure to finish the requirements doc
### Phase 4: Handoff
Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to present next steps:
#### 4.1 Present Next-Step Options
**Question:** "Brainstorm captured. What would you like to do next?"
Present next steps using the platform's interactive question mechanism when available. Otherwise present numbered options in chat and wait for the user's reply.
**Options:**
1. **Review and refine** - Improve the document through structured self-review
2. **Proceed to planning** - Run `/ce:plan` (will auto-detect this brainstorm)
3. **Share to Proof** - Upload to Proof for collaborative review and sharing
4. **Ask more questions** - I have more questions to clarify before moving on
5. **Done for now** - Return later
If `Resolve Before Planning` contains any items:
- Ask the blocking questions now, one at a time, by default
- If the user explicitly wants to proceed anyway, first convert each remaining item into an explicit decision, assumption, or `Deferred to Planning` question
- If the user chooses to pause instead, present the handoff as paused or blocked rather than complete
- Do not offer `Proceed to planning` or `Proceed directly to work` while `Resolve Before Planning` remains non-empty
**Question when no blocking questions remain:** "Brainstorm complete. What would you like to do next?"
**Question when blocking questions remain and user wants to pause:** "Brainstorm paused. Planning is blocked until the remaining questions are resolved. What would you like to do next?"
Present only the options that apply:
- **Proceed to planning (Recommended)** - Run `ce:plan` for structured implementation planning
- **Proceed directly to work** - Only offer this when scope is lightweight, success criteria are clear, scope boundaries are clear, and no meaningful technical or research questions remain
- **Review and refine** - Offer this only when a requirements document exists and can be improved through structured review
- **Ask more questions** - Continue clarifying scope, preferences, or edge cases
- **Share to Proof** - Offer this only when a requirements document exists
- **Done for now** - Return later
If the direct-to-work gate is not satisfied, omit that option entirely.
#### 4.2 Handle the Selected Option
**If user selects "Share to Proof":**
```bash
CONTENT=$(cat docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md)
TITLE="Brainstorm: <topic title>"
CONTENT=$(cat docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md)
TITLE="Requirements: <topic title>"
RESPONSE=$(curl -s -X POST https://www.proofeditor.ai/share/markdown \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d "$(jq -n --arg title "$TITLE" --arg markdown "$CONTENT" --arg by "ai:compound" '{title: $title, markdown: $markdown, by: $by}')")
@@ -108,38 +279,42 @@ Display the URL prominently: `View & collaborate in Proof: <PROOF_URL>`
If the curl fails, skip silently. Then return to the Phase 4 options.
**If user selects "Ask more questions":** YOU (Claude) return to Phase 1.2 (Collaborative Dialogue) and continue asking the USER questions one at a time to further refine the design. The user wants YOU to probe deeper - ask about edge cases, constraints, preferences, or areas not yet explored. Continue until the user is satisfied, then return to Phase 4.
**If user selects "Ask more questions":** Return to Phase 1.3 (Collaborative Dialogue) and continue asking the user questions one at a time to further refine the design. Probe deeper into edge cases, constraints, preferences, or areas not yet explored. Continue until the user is satisfied, then return to Phase 4. Do not show the closing summary yet.
**If user selects "Review and refine":**
Load the `document-review` skill and apply it to the brainstorm document.
Load the `document-review` skill and apply it to the requirements document.
When document-review returns "Review complete", present next steps:
When document-review returns "Review complete", return to the normal Phase 4 options and present only the options that still apply. Do not show the closing summary yet.
1. **Move to planning** - Continue to `/ce:plan` with this document
2. **Done for now** - Brainstorming complete. To start planning later: `/ce:plan [document-path]`
#### 4.3 Closing Summary
## Output Summary
Use the closing summary only when this run of the workflow is ending or handing off, not when returning to the Phase 4 options.
When complete, display:
When complete and ready for planning, display:
```
```text
Brainstorm complete!
Document: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md
Requirements doc: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md # if one was created
Key decisions:
- [Decision 1]
- [Decision 2]
Next: Run `/ce:plan` when ready to implement.
Recommended next step: `ce:plan`
```
## Important Guidelines
If the user pauses with `Resolve Before Planning` still populated, display:
- **Stay focused on WHAT, not HOW** - Implementation details belong in the plan
- **Ask one question at a time** - Don't overwhelm
- **Apply YAGNI** - Prefer simpler approaches
- **Keep outputs concise** - 200-300 words per section max
```text
Brainstorm paused.
NEVER CODE! Just explore and document decisions.
Requirements doc: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md # if one was created
Planning is blocked by:
- [Blocking question 1]
- [Blocking question 2]
Resume with `ce:brainstorm` when ready to resolve these before planning.
```