This is not optional. Check ALL 5 items before sending.

Example - VIOLATION (466 words in chat):

Option 1: TypeScript with Dual Export Strategy

What it does:
- Convert normalizeAnchor.js → normalizeAnchor.ts with proper TypeScript types
- Use TypeScript compilation to emit both .js and .d.ts files
- JavaScript files import from the compiled .js output
- No changes needed to existing .js importers

Validation approach:
- Convert test file to normalize-anchor.test.ts
- Run existing Vitest suite to confirm tests pass
- Add import validation test in ContentExtractor.js

[continues with 300+ more words...]

Example - CORRECT (<100 words in chat):

Two options for Epic 3 POC:

Option 1 (Recommended): Standard TypeScript compilation
- .js files import from compiled output (no changes needed)
- Validates no-touch migration pattern for Epic 4

Option 2: Direct .ts imports
- Faster but requires changing import paths in .js files
- Riskier for scaling to 58 files

Recommendation: Option 1 validates the critical requirement (incremental conversion without breaking existing code).

Your decision: Approve Option 1?

Common Rationalizations (STOP These)

Red Flags - You're About to Violate

STOP immediately if you find yourself:

• Writing "What we validate:" subsections with 3+ bullet points
• Mentioning specific config files (tsconfig.json, vitest.config.js)
• Including "What we skip" or "What we document" sections
• Writing 100+ words per option (3 options × 100 words = already over budget)
• Adding detailed pros/cons lists (4-5 items each)
• Using technical jargon (source maps, type inference, circular dependencies)
• Explaining validation procedures ("Run Vitest suite", "Add import test")

If you hit ANY red flag: Delete what you wrote. Restart with decision focus only.

User Interface

Quick Reference

The Process

Copy this checklist to track progress:

Brainstorming Progress:
- [ ] Prep: Autonomous Recon (repo/docs/commits reviewed, initial model shared)
- [ ] Phase 1: Understanding (purpose, constraints, criteria gathered)
- [ ] Phase 2: Exploration (2-3 approaches proposed and evaluated)
- [ ] Phase 3: Design Presentation (design validated in sections)
- [ ] Phase 4: Design Documentation (design written to project design documen folder)

Prep: Autonomous Recon

• Use existing tools (file browsing, docs, git history, tests) to understand current project state before asking anything.
• Form your draft model: what problem you're solving, what artifacts exist, and what questions remain.
• Start the conversation by sharing that model: "Based on exploring the project state, docs, working copy, and recent commits, here's how I think this should work…"
• Ask follow-up questions only for information you cannot infer from available materials.

Phase 1: Understanding

• Share your synthesized understanding first, then invite corrections or additions.
• Ask one focused question at a time, only for gaps you cannot close yourself.
• Use AskUserQuestion tool only when you need the human to make a decision among real alternatives.
• Gather: Purpose, constraints, success criteria (confirmed or amended by your partner)

Example summary + targeted question:

Based on the README and yesterday's commit, we're expanding localization to dashboard and billing emails; admin console is still untouched. Only gap I see is whether support responses need localization in this iteration. Did I miss anything important?

Example using AskUserQuestion:

Question: "Where should the authentication data be stored?"
Options:
  - "Session storage" (clears on tab close, more secure)
  - "Local storage" (persists across sessions, more convenient)
  - "Cookies" (works with SSR, compatible with older approach)

Phase 2: Exploration

• Propose 2-3 different approaches

• For each: Core architecture, trade-offs, complexity assessment

• Use AskUserQuestion tool to present approaches when you truly need a judgement call

• Lead with the option you prefer and explain why; invite disagreement if your partner sees it differently

• Own prioritization: if the repo makes priorities clear, state them and proceed rather than asking

Example using AskUserQuestion:

Question: "Which architectural approach should we use?"
Options:
  - "Event-driven with message queue" (scalable, complex setup, eventual consistency)
  - "Direct API calls with retry logic" (simple, synchronous, easier to debug)
  - "Hybrid with background jobs" (balanced, moderate complexity, best of both)

Phase 3: Design Presentation

• Present in coherent sections; use ~200-300 words when introducing new material, shorter summaries once alignment is obvious
• Cover: Architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
• Check in at natural breakpoints rather than after every paragraph: "Stop me if this diverges from what you expect."
• Use open-ended questions to allow freeform feedback
• Assume ownership and proceed unless your partner redirects you

Phase 4: Design Documentation

After validating the design, write it to a permanent document:

• File location: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md (use actual date and descriptive topic)
• RECOMMENDED SUB-SKILL: Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely (if available) for documentation quality
• Content: Capture the design as discussed and validated in Phase 3, organized into sections that emerged from the conversation
• Commit the design document to git before proceeding

Question Patterns

When to Use AskUserQuestion Tool

Use AskUserQuestion when:

• You need your partner to make a judgement call among real alternatives
• You have a recommendation and can explain why it’s your preference
• Prioritization is ambiguous and cannot be inferred from existing materials

Best practices:

• State your preferred option and rationale inside the question so your partner can agree or redirect
• If you know the answer from repo/docs, state it as fact and proceed—no question needed
• When priorities are spelled out, acknowledge them and proceed rather than delegating the choice back to your partner

When to Use Open-Ended Questions

Use open-ended questions for:

• Phase 3: Design validation ("Does this look right so far?")
• When you need detailed feedback or explanation
• When partner should describe their own requirements
• When structured options would limit creative input

Frame them to confirm or expand your current understanding rather than reopening settled topics.

Example decision flow:

• "What authentication method?" → Use AskUserQuestion (2-4 options)
• "Does this design handle your use case?" → Open-ended (validation)

When to Revisit Earlier Phases

graph LR
    a@{ shape: diam, label: "New constraint revealed?" }
    b@{ shape: diam, label: "Partner questions approach?" }
    c@{ shape: diam, label: "Requirements unclear?" }
    d@{ shape: rect, label: "Return to Phase 1: Understanding" }
    e@{ shape: rect, label: "Return to Phase 2: Exploration" }
    f@{ shape: rect, label: "Continue forward" }

    a -->|yes| d
    a -->|no| b
    b -->|yes| e
    b -->|no| c
    c -->|yes| d
    c -->|no| f

    classDef phase1 fill:#ffcccc
    classDef phase2 fill:#ffffcc
    classDef continue fill:#ccffcc
    classDef node fill:transparent

    a:::node
    d:::phase1
    e:::phase2
    f:::continue

You can and should go backward when:

• Partner reveals new constraint during Phase 2 or 3 → Return to Phase 1
• Validation shows fundamental gap in requirements → Return to Phase 1
• Partner questions approach during Phase 3 → Return to Phase 2
• Something doesn't make sense → Go back and clarify

Don't force forward linearly when going backward would give better results.

Key Principles