| name | brainstorming |
| description | Use when creating or developing anything, before writing code or implementation plans - refines rough ideas into fully-formed designs through structured Socratic questioning, alternative exploration, and incremental validation |
Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Overview
Transform rough ideas into fully-formed designs through structured questioning and alternative exploration.
Core principle: Ask questions to understand, explore alternatives, present design incrementally for validation.
Announce skill usage at start of session.
When to Use This Skill
Activate this skill when:
- Request contains "I have an idea for..." or "I want to build..."
- User asks "help me design..." or "what's the best approach for..."
- Requirements are vague or high-level
- Multiple approaches might work
- Before writing any code or implementation plans
- User needs to explore trade-offs between different solutions
When NOT to Use This Skill
Skip brainstorming when:
- Requirements are crystal clear and specific
- Only one obvious approach exists
- User has already designed the solution (just needs implementation)
- Time-sensitive bug fix or urgent production issue
- User explicitly says "just implement it" without questions
Examples of clear requirements (no brainstorming needed):
- "Add a print button to this page"
- "Fix this TypeError on line 42"
- "Update the copyright year to 2025"
- "Change the button color to #FF5733"
The Three-Phase Process
| Phase | Key Activities | Tool Usage | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Understanding | Ask questions (one at a time) | AskUserQuestion for choices | Purpose, constraints, criteria |
| 2. Exploration | Propose 2-3 approaches | AskUserQuestion for approach selection | Architecture options with trade-offs |
| 3. Design Presentation | Present in 200-300 word sections | Open-ended questions | Complete design with validation |
Phase 1: Understanding
Goal: Gather purpose, constraints, and success criteria.
Process:
- Check current project state in working directory
- Ask ONE question at a time to refine the idea
- Use AskUserQuestion tool when presenting multiple choice options
- Gather: Purpose, constraints, success criteria
Tool Usage: Use AskUserQuestion for clarifying questions with 2-4 clear options.
Example: "Where should the authentication data be stored?" with options for Session storage, Local storage, Cookies, each with trade-off descriptions.
See references/example-session-auth.md for complete Phase 1 example.
Phase 2: Exploration
Goal: Propose 2-3 different architectural approaches with explicit trade-offs.
Process:
- Propose 2-3 different approaches
- For each: Core architecture, trade-offs, complexity assessment
- Use AskUserQuestion tool to present approaches as structured choices
- Include trade-off comparison table when helpful
Trade-off Format:
| Approach | Pros | Cons | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Option 1 | Benefits | Drawbacks | Low/Med/High |
| Option 2 | Benefits | Drawbacks | Low/Med/High |
| Option 3 | Benefits | Drawbacks | Low/Med/High |
See references/example-session-dashboard.md for complete Phase 2 example with SSE vs WebSockets vs Polling comparison.
Phase 3: Design Presentation
Goal: Present complete design incrementally, validating each section.
Process:
- Present in 200-300 word sections
- Cover: Architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
- Ask after each section: "Does this look right so far?"
- Use open-ended questions to allow freeform feedback
Typical Sections:
- Architecture overview
- Component details
- Data flow
- Error handling
- Security considerations
- Implementation priorities
Validation Pattern: After each section, pause for feedback before proceeding to next section.
Tool Usage Guidelines
Use AskUserQuestion Tool For:
- Phase 1: Clarifying questions with 2-4 clear options
- Phase 2: Architectural approach selection (2-3 alternatives)
- Any decision with distinct, mutually exclusive choices
- When options have clear trade-offs to explain
Benefits:
- Structured presentation of options with descriptions
- Clear trade-off visibility
- Forces explicit choice (prevents vague "maybe both" responses)
Use Open-Ended Questions For:
- Phase 3: Design validation
- When detailed feedback or explanation is needed
- When the user should describe their own requirements
- When structured options would limit creative input
Non-Linear Progression
Flexibility is key. Go backward when needed - don't force linear progression.
Return to Phase 1 when:
- User reveals new constraint during Phase 2 or 3
- Validation shows fundamental gap in requirements
- Something doesn't make sense
Return to Phase 2 when:
- User questions the chosen approach during Phase 3
- New information suggests a different approach would be better
Continue forward when:
- All requirements are clear
- Chosen approach is validated
- No new constraints emerge
Key Principles
| Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| One question at a time | Phase 1: Single question per message, use AskUserQuestion for choices |
| Structured choices | Use AskUserQuestion tool for 2-4 options with trade-offs |
| YAGNI ruthlessly | Remove unnecessary features from all designs |
| Explore alternatives | Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling |
| Incremental validation | Present design in sections, validate each |
| Flexible progression | Go backward when needed - flexibility > rigidity |
After Brainstorming Completes
Consider these optional next steps:
- Document the design in project's design documentation
- Break down the design into actionable implementation tasks
- Create a git branch or workspace for isolated development
Use templates in assets/design-doc-template.md and assets/decision-matrix-template.md for structured documentation.
Socratic Questioning Templates
Purpose Discovery Questions
Goal: Understand the "why" behind the feature.
- "What problem does this solve for your users?"
- "What happens if we don't build this?"
- "How will success be measured?"
- "Who is the primary user of this feature?"
- "What's the most important outcome?"
Constraint Identification Questions
Goal: Uncover limitations and requirements.
- "Are there performance requirements? (e.g., must load in < 2s)"
- "What's the expected scale? (users, data volume, requests/sec)"
- "Are there compliance requirements? (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2)"
- "What's the timeline/budget constraint?"
- "What existing systems must this integrate with?"
Trade-Off Exploration Questions
Goal: Make implicit preferences explicit.
- "Would you prefer faster development or better performance?"
- "Is flexibility more important than simplicity?"
- "Should this be user-friendly or developer-friendly?"
- "Optimize for: initial build speed, maintainability, or scalability?"
- "What's more critical: feature completeness or time-to-market?"
Alternative Exploration Questions
Goal: Ensure we consider all viable approaches.
- "What if we didn't build this at all? What's the workaround?"
- "How would [competitor/similar product] solve this?"
- "Could we start with a simpler version? What's the MVP?"
- "What if we had unlimited time/budget? What would we add?"
- "What approaches have you already considered and rejected? Why?"
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Pitfall 1: Asking Too Many Questions Upfront
❌ BAD:
"Before we start, I need to know:
1. What's your tech stack?
2. How many users?
3. What's the budget?
4. What's the timeline?
5. Who's the target audience?
..."
✅ GOOD:
"What problem does this solve for your users?"
[Wait for answer, then ask next most important question]
Why: Information overload prevents conversation flow. Ask one at a time.
Pitfall 2: Proposing Only One Approach
❌ BAD:
"Here's the solution: Use Redis for caching..."
✅ GOOD:
"I see three approaches:
1. Redis (fast, but adds infrastructure)
2. In-memory (simple, but doesn't scale)
3. Database query cache (integrated, but slower)
Which trade-offs matter most?"
Why: Single approach suggests you haven't explored alternatives.
Pitfall 3: Over-Engineering from the Start
❌ BAD:
"Let's use microservices, Kubernetes, Redis, Kafka,
message queues, and a service mesh..."
✅ GOOD:
"For 100 users/day, a monolith with PostgreSQL
is sufficient. We can split services later if needed."
Why: YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It). Start simple, scale when necessary.
Pitfall 4: Ignoring Existing Code/Patterns
❌ BAD:
"Let's rebuild this with a completely different architecture..."
✅ GOOD:
[Read existing code first]
"I see you're using Express + PostgreSQL. Let's extend
that pattern with a new route handler..."
Why: Consistency > novelty. Use existing patterns unless there's a compelling reason to change.
Integration with Other Skills
After brainstorming completes, consider:
- architecture-decision-record: Document key architectural decisions made during brainstorming
- design-system-starter: Create design tokens and components if building UI
- api-design-framework: Define API contracts if building backend services
- testing-strategy-builder: Plan testing approach for the designed system
- security-checklist: Review security implications of design choices
Example flow:
- Brainstorming → Design approach selected
- Architecture Decision Record → Document "Why we chose approach X"
- API Design → Define endpoints and contracts
- Testing Strategy → Plan how to test the implementation
Real-World Brainstorming Examples
Example 1: E-commerce Product Recommendation Engine
Phase 1 - Understanding:
- Q: "What problem does this solve?" → A: "Users can't discover relevant products"
- Q: "How many products in catalog?" → A: "50,000+ products"
- Q: "What data do we have?" → A: "Purchase history, browsing history, ratings"
Phase 2 - Exploration:
- Approach 1: Collaborative filtering (similar users, proven approach)
- Approach 2: Content-based filtering (product attributes, simpler) ← CHOSEN
- Approach 3: Hybrid ML model (best results, complex implementation)
Phase 3 - Design:
- Vector embeddings for product descriptions
- PostgreSQL with pgvector extension
- Batch embedding generation nightly
- API endpoint returning top 10 similar products
Result: Simple, fast recommendation system launched in 2 weeks
Example 2: Real-Time Analytics Dashboard
Phase 1 - Understanding:
- Q: "What metrics need to be real-time?" → A: "Active users, revenue, errors"
- Q: "How many concurrent viewers?" → A: "10-50 at peak"
- Q: "Acceptable latency?" → A: "Updates within 5 seconds fine"
Phase 2 - Exploration:
- Approach 1: Server-Sent Events (simple, unidirectional) ← CHOSEN
- Approach 2: WebSockets (complex, bidirectional not needed)
- Approach 3: Polling (wasteful, high server load)
Phase 3 - Design:
- SSE endpoint streaming JSON updates every 3 seconds
- Redis pub/sub for broadcasting to multiple viewers
- Automatic reconnection with exponential backoff
- Chart.js for real-time visualization
Result: Real-time dashboard without WebSocket complexity
Example 3: File Upload Service
Phase 1 - Understanding:
- Q: "What file types?" → A: "Images, PDFs, videos"
- Q: "Max file size?" → A: "100MB per file"
- Q: "Expected volume?" → A: "1000 uploads/day"
Phase 2 - Exploration:
- Approach 1: Direct upload to S3 (fast, S3 costs)
- Approach 2: Server upload then S3 (slower, more control) ← CHOSEN
- Approach 3: Cloudinary (expensive, fully managed)
Phase 3 - Design:
- Multipart upload with progress tracking
- Server-side virus scanning (ClamAV)
- Image optimization and thumbnails (Sharp)
- Store metadata in PostgreSQL, files in S3
Result: Secure upload service with virus scanning and optimization
Examples
Complete brainstorming sessions:
references/example-session-auth.md- Authentication storage design (JWT vs Session vs Cookies)references/example-session-dashboard.md- Real-time dashboard design (SSE vs WebSockets vs Polling)
Output templates:
assets/design-doc-template.md- Structured design document formatassets/decision-matrix-template.md- Weighted decision comparison format
Tips for Effective Brainstorming
- Read the codebase first - Don't propose changes without understanding existing patterns
- One question at a time - Conversation flow > information dump
- Always propose 2-3 alternatives - Shows you've explored options
- Make trade-offs explicit - "Fast but complex" vs "Slow but simple"
- Validate incrementally - Don't present 10-page design at once
- Be ready to backtrack - Non-linear is fine when new info emerges
- Start simple, scale later - YAGNI ruthlessly
- Document decisions - Use ADRs for key architectural choices
Version: 1.1.0 (December 2025) Status: Production-ready patterns from real-world brainstorming sessions