feat: Add /workflows:brainstorm command and skill (#101)
* feat(workflows:plan): Add smart research decision logic Previously, /workflows:plan always ran all 3 research agents (repo-research, best-practices, framework-docs) regardless of task complexity. This wasted tokens and time for simple tasks like UI tweaks or bug fixes with clear causes. Now the workflow: - Always runs repo research first (fast, local) - Makes an informed decision about external research based on: - Signals gathered during idea refinement (familiarity, intent, risk) - Repo research findings (existing patterns, CLAUDE.md guidance) - High-risk topics (security, payments, external APIs) always trigger research - Strong local context allows skipping external research - Announces the decision and proceeds, user can redirect if needed This makes the planning workflow smarter about when web research adds value. * feat: Add /workflows:brainstorm command and skill Add brainstorming workflow to explore requirements and approaches before planning implementation: - New `/workflows:brainstorm` command for collaborative dialogue - New `brainstorming` skill with process knowledge and techniques - Update `/workflows:plan` to detect brainstorm output and skip idea refinement when relevant brainstorm exists - Add brainstorm to README workflow commands table The brainstorm → plan flow enables: - Phase 0: Assess requirement clarity - Phase 1: Understand the idea via repo research + dialogue - Phase 2: Explore 2-3 approaches with trade-offs - Phase 3: Capture design to docs/brainstorms/ - Phase 4: Handoff to /workflows:plan
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ Core workflow commands use `workflows:` prefix to avoid collisions with built-in
|
||||
|
||||
| Command | Description |
|
||||
|---------|-------------|
|
||||
| `/workflows:brainstorm` | Explore requirements and approaches before planning |
|
||||
| `/workflows:plan` | Create implementation plans |
|
||||
| `/workflows:review` | Run comprehensive code reviews |
|
||||
| `/workflows:work` | Execute work items systematically |
|
||||
|
||||
115
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/brainstorm.md
Normal file
115
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/brainstorm.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: workflows:brainstorm
|
||||
description: Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before planning implementation
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
Brainstorming helps answer **WHAT** to build through collaborative dialogue. It precedes `/workflows:plan`, which answers **HOW** to build it.
|
||||
|
||||
**Process knowledge:** Load the `brainstorming` skill for detailed question techniques, approach exploration patterns, and YAGNI principles.
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Description
|
||||
|
||||
<feature_description> #$ARGUMENTS </feature_description>
|
||||
|
||||
**If the feature description above is empty, ask the user:** "What would you like to explore? Please describe the feature, problem, or improvement you're thinking about."
|
||||
|
||||
Do not proceed until you have a feature description from the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Flow
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 0: Assess Requirements Clarity
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluate whether brainstorming is needed based on the feature description.
|
||||
|
||||
**Clear requirements indicators:**
|
||||
- Specific acceptance criteria provided
|
||||
- Referenced existing patterns to follow
|
||||
- Described exact expected behavior
|
||||
- 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 `/workflows:plan` instead, or would you like to explore the idea further?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Understand the Idea
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1.1 Repository Research (Lightweight)
|
||||
|
||||
Run a quick repo scan to understand existing patterns:
|
||||
|
||||
- Task repo-research-analyst("Understand existing patterns related to: <feature_description>")
|
||||
|
||||
Focus on: similar features, established patterns, CLAUDE.md guidance.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1.2 Collaborative Dialogue
|
||||
|
||||
Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask questions **one at a time**.
|
||||
|
||||
**Guidelines (see `brainstorming` skill for detailed techniques):**
|
||||
- Prefer multiple choice when natural options exist
|
||||
- Start broad (purpose, users) then narrow (constraints, edge cases)
|
||||
- Validate assumptions explicitly
|
||||
- Ask about success criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Exit condition:** Continue until the idea is clear OR user says "proceed"
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Explore Approaches
|
||||
|
||||
Propose **2-3 concrete approaches** based on research and conversation.
|
||||
|
||||
For each approach, provide:
|
||||
- Brief description (2-3 sentences)
|
||||
- Pros and cons
|
||||
- When it's best suited
|
||||
|
||||
Lead with your recommendation and explain why. Apply YAGNI—prefer simpler solutions.
|
||||
|
||||
Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask which approach the user prefers.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Capture the Design
|
||||
|
||||
Write a brainstorm document to `docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Document structure:** See the `brainstorming` skill for the template format. Key sections: What We're Building, Why This Approach, Key Decisions, Open Questions.
|
||||
|
||||
Ensure `docs/brainstorms/` directory exists before writing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Handoff
|
||||
|
||||
Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to present next steps:
|
||||
|
||||
**Question:** "Brainstorm captured. What would you like to do next?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
1. **Proceed to planning** - Run `/workflows:plan` (will auto-detect this brainstorm)
|
||||
2. **Refine design further** - Continue exploring
|
||||
3. **Done for now** - Return later
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Summary
|
||||
|
||||
When complete, display:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Brainstorm complete!
|
||||
|
||||
Document: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md
|
||||
|
||||
Key decisions:
|
||||
- [Decision 1]
|
||||
- [Decision 2]
|
||||
|
||||
Next: Run `/workflows:plan` when ready to implement.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- **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
|
||||
|
||||
NEVER CODE! Just explore and document decisions.
|
||||
@@ -22,44 +22,97 @@ Do not proceed until you have a clear feature description from the user.
|
||||
|
||||
### 0. Idea Refinement
|
||||
|
||||
Before running research, refine the idea through collaborative dialogue using the **AskUserQuestion tool**:
|
||||
**Check for brainstorm output first:**
|
||||
|
||||
Before asking questions, look for recent brainstorm documents in `docs/brainstorms/` that match this feature:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
ls -la docs/brainstorms/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -10
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Relevance criteria:** A brainstorm is relevant if:
|
||||
- The topic (from filename or YAML frontmatter) semantically matches the feature description
|
||||
- Created within the last 14 days
|
||||
- If multiple candidates match, use the most recent one
|
||||
|
||||
**If a relevant brainstorm exists:**
|
||||
1. Read the brainstorm document
|
||||
2. Announce: "Found brainstorm from [date]: [topic]. Using as context for planning."
|
||||
3. Extract key decisions, chosen approach, and open questions
|
||||
4. **Skip the idea refinement questions below** - the brainstorm already answered WHAT to build
|
||||
5. Use brainstorm decisions as input to the research phase
|
||||
|
||||
**If multiple brainstorms could match:**
|
||||
Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask which brainstorm to use, or whether to proceed without one.
|
||||
|
||||
**If no brainstorm found (or not relevant), run idea refinement:**
|
||||
|
||||
Refine the idea through collaborative dialogue using the **AskUserQuestion tool**:
|
||||
|
||||
- Ask questions one at a time to understand the idea fully
|
||||
- Prefer multiple choice questions when natural options exist
|
||||
- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints and success criteria
|
||||
- Continue until the idea is clear OR user says "proceed"
|
||||
|
||||
**Gather signals for research decision.** During refinement, note:
|
||||
|
||||
- **User's familiarity**: Do they know the codebase patterns? Are they pointing to examples?
|
||||
- **User's intent**: Speed vs thoroughness? Exploration vs execution?
|
||||
- **Topic risk**: Security, payments, external APIs warrant more caution
|
||||
- **Uncertainty level**: Is the approach clear or open-ended?
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip option:** If the feature description is already detailed, offer:
|
||||
"Your description is clear. Should I proceed with research, or would you like to refine it further?"
|
||||
|
||||
## Main Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Repository Research & Context Gathering
|
||||
### 1. Repository Research (Always Runs)
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking>
|
||||
First, I need to understand the project's conventions and existing patterns, leveraging all available resources and use paralel subagents to do this.
|
||||
First, I need to understand the project's conventions and existing patterns. This is fast and local - it informs whether external research is needed.
|
||||
</thinking>
|
||||
|
||||
Runn these three agents in paralel at the same time:
|
||||
Run repo research to understand the codebase:
|
||||
|
||||
- Task repo-research-analyst(feature_description)
|
||||
|
||||
**What to look for:** existing patterns, CLAUDE.md guidance, technology familiarity, pattern consistency. These findings inform the next step.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.5. Research Decision
|
||||
|
||||
Based on signals from Step 0 and findings from Step 1, decide on external research.
|
||||
|
||||
**High-risk topics → always research.** Security, payments, external APIs, data privacy. The cost of missing something is too high. This takes precedence over speed signals.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strong local context → skip external research.** Codebase has good patterns, CLAUDE.md has guidance, user knows what they want. External research adds little value.
|
||||
|
||||
**Uncertainty or unfamiliar territory → research.** User is exploring, codebase has no examples, new technology. External perspective is valuable.
|
||||
|
||||
**Announce the decision and proceed.** Brief explanation, then continue. User can redirect if needed.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
- "Your codebase has solid patterns for this. Proceeding without external research."
|
||||
- "This involves payment processing, so I'll research current best practices first."
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.5b. External Research (Conditional)
|
||||
|
||||
**Only run if Step 1.5 indicates external research is valuable.**
|
||||
|
||||
Run these agents in parallel:
|
||||
|
||||
- Task best-practices-researcher(feature_description)
|
||||
- Task framework-docs-researcher(feature_description)
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Collection:**
|
||||
### 1.6. Consolidate Research
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Document all research findings with specific file paths (e.g., `app/services/example_service.rb:42`)
|
||||
- [ ] Include URLs to external documentation and best practices guides
|
||||
- [ ] Create a reference list of similar issues or PRs (e.g., `#123`, `#456`)
|
||||
- [ ] Note any team conventions discovered in `CLAUDE.md` or team documentation
|
||||
After all research steps complete, consolidate findings:
|
||||
|
||||
### Research Validation (Optional)
|
||||
- Document relevant file paths from repo research (e.g., `app/services/example_service.rb:42`)
|
||||
- Note external documentation URLs and best practices (if external research was done)
|
||||
- List related issues or PRs discovered
|
||||
- Capture CLAUDE.md conventions
|
||||
|
||||
After research agents complete, briefly validate alignment:
|
||||
|
||||
- Summarize key findings from research
|
||||
- Ask if anything looks off or is missing
|
||||
- User can confirm or request additional research on specific topics
|
||||
**Optional validation:** Briefly summarize findings and ask if anything looks off or missing before proceeding to planning.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Issue Planning & Structure
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
190
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md
Normal file
190
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: brainstorming
|
||||
description: This skill should be used before implementing features, building components, or making changes. It guides exploring user intent, approaches, and design decisions before planning. Triggers on "let's brainstorm", "help me think through", "what should we build", "explore approaches", ambiguous feature requests, or when the user's request has multiple valid interpretations that need clarification.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Brainstorming
|
||||
|
||||
This skill provides detailed process knowledge for effective brainstorming sessions that clarify **WHAT** to build before diving into **HOW** to build it.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use This Skill
|
||||
|
||||
Brainstorming is valuable when:
|
||||
- Requirements are unclear or ambiguous
|
||||
- Multiple approaches could solve the problem
|
||||
- Trade-offs need to be explored with the user
|
||||
- The user hasn't fully articulated what they want
|
||||
- The feature scope needs refinement
|
||||
|
||||
Brainstorming can be skipped when:
|
||||
- Requirements are explicit and detailed
|
||||
- The user knows exactly what they want
|
||||
- The task is a straightforward bug fix or well-defined change
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Process
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 0: Assess Requirement Clarity
|
||||
|
||||
Before diving into questions, assess whether brainstorming is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
**Signals that requirements are clear:**
|
||||
- User provided specific acceptance criteria
|
||||
- User referenced existing patterns to follow
|
||||
- User described exact behavior expected
|
||||
- Scope is constrained and well-defined
|
||||
|
||||
**Signals that brainstorming is needed:**
|
||||
- User used vague terms ("make it better", "add something like")
|
||||
- Multiple reasonable interpretations exist
|
||||
- Trade-offs haven't been discussed
|
||||
- User seems unsure about the approach
|
||||
|
||||
If requirements are clear, suggest: "Your requirements seem clear. Consider proceeding directly to planning or implementation."
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Understand the Idea
|
||||
|
||||
Ask questions **one at a time** to understand the user's intent. Avoid overwhelming with multiple questions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Question Techniques:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Prefer multiple choice when natural options exist**
|
||||
- Good: "Should the notification be: (a) email only, (b) in-app only, or (c) both?"
|
||||
- Avoid: "How should users be notified?"
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Start broad, then narrow**
|
||||
- First: What is the core purpose?
|
||||
- Then: Who are the users?
|
||||
- Finally: What constraints exist?
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Validate assumptions explicitly**
|
||||
- "I'm assuming users will be logged in. Is that correct?"
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Ask about success criteria early**
|
||||
- "How will you know this feature is working well?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Topics to Explore:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Topic | Example Questions |
|
||||
|-------|-------------------|
|
||||
| Purpose | What problem does this solve? What's the motivation? |
|
||||
| Users | Who uses this? What's their context? |
|
||||
| Constraints | Any technical limitations? Timeline? Dependencies? |
|
||||
| Success | How will you measure success? What's the happy path? |
|
||||
| Edge Cases | What shouldn't happen? Any error states to consider? |
|
||||
| Existing Patterns | Are there similar features in the codebase to follow? |
|
||||
|
||||
**Exit Condition:** Continue until the idea is clear OR user says "proceed" or "let's move on"
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Explore Approaches
|
||||
|
||||
After understanding the idea, propose 2-3 concrete approaches.
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure for Each Approach:**
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
### Approach A: [Name]
|
||||
|
||||
[2-3 sentence description]
|
||||
|
||||
**Pros:**
|
||||
- [Benefit 1]
|
||||
- [Benefit 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Cons:**
|
||||
- [Drawback 1]
|
||||
- [Drawback 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Best when:** [Circumstances where this approach shines]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Guidelines:**
|
||||
- Lead with a recommendation and explain why
|
||||
- Be honest about trade-offs
|
||||
- Consider YAGNI—simpler is usually better
|
||||
- Reference codebase patterns when relevant
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Capture the Design
|
||||
|
||||
Summarize key decisions in a structured format.
|
||||
|
||||
**Design Doc Structure:**
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
---
|
||||
date: YYYY-MM-DD
|
||||
topic: <kebab-case-topic>
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# <Topic Title>
|
||||
|
||||
## What We're Building
|
||||
[Concise description—1-2 paragraphs max]
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Approach
|
||||
[Brief explanation of approaches considered and why this one was chosen]
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
- [Decision 1]: [Rationale]
|
||||
- [Decision 2]: [Rationale]
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
- [Any unresolved questions for the planning phase]
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
→ `/workflows:plan` for implementation details
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Location:** `docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Handoff
|
||||
|
||||
Present clear options for what to do next:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Proceed to planning** → Run `/workflows:plan`
|
||||
2. **Refine further** → Continue exploring the design
|
||||
3. **Done for now** → User will return later
|
||||
|
||||
## YAGNI Principles
|
||||
|
||||
During brainstorming, actively resist complexity:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Don't design for hypothetical future requirements**
|
||||
- **Choose the simplest approach that solves the stated problem**
|
||||
- **Prefer boring, proven patterns over clever solutions**
|
||||
- **Ask "Do we really need this?" when complexity emerges**
|
||||
- **Defer decisions that don't need to be made now**
|
||||
|
||||
## Incremental Validation
|
||||
|
||||
Keep sections short—200-300 words maximum. After each section of output, pause to validate understanding:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Does this match what you had in mind?"
|
||||
- "Any adjustments before we continue?"
|
||||
- "Is this the direction you want to go?"
|
||||
|
||||
This prevents wasted effort on misaligned designs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
|
||||
|
||||
| Anti-Pattern | Better Approach |
|
||||
|--------------|-----------------|
|
||||
| Asking 5 questions at once | Ask one at a time |
|
||||
| Jumping to implementation details | Stay focused on WHAT, not HOW |
|
||||
| Proposing overly complex solutions | Start simple, add complexity only if needed |
|
||||
| Ignoring existing codebase patterns | Research what exists first |
|
||||
| Making assumptions without validating | State assumptions explicitly and confirm |
|
||||
| Creating lengthy design documents | Keep it concise—details go in the plan |
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with Planning
|
||||
|
||||
Brainstorming answers **WHAT** to build:
|
||||
- Requirements and acceptance criteria
|
||||
- Chosen approach and rationale
|
||||
- Key decisions and trade-offs
|
||||
|
||||
Planning answers **HOW** to build it:
|
||||
- Implementation steps and file changes
|
||||
- Technical details and code patterns
|
||||
- Testing strategy and verification
|
||||
|
||||
When brainstorm output exists, `/workflows:plan` should detect it and use it as input, skipping its own idea refinement phase.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user