Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
<HARD-GATE>
Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
</HARD-GATE>
Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
Checklist
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
— Read the project root FIRST. Understand coding rules, gate checks, mandatory specs, and red lines. This step MUST complete before anything else. Non-negotiable.
<HARD-GATE>
Red lines — if any approach violates these, reject it and propose an alternative:
Offer visual companion (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below.
Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
Write spec file — save to specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>/spec.md and commit
Spec self-review — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
The Process
Understanding the idea:
Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
Exploring approaches:
Before proposing ANY approach, run the Three-Question Check on EACH option:
Is this approach suitable for the current scenario? — Not "do we have this problem now", but "is this design reasonable in our context". A sound abstraction is worth doing even with only one implementation — good interface design stands on its own.
Copying or borrowing? — Borrowing design principles (generics, interface segregation) is correct. Copying specific implementations (porting a network framework's Pipeline into a sync SDK) is wrong. The test: is the original pattern's problem domain isomorphic to ours?
Independent judgment? — Don't blindly follow the user, don't blindly reject either. "Match Netty" means "code should be professional", not "clone Netty's architecture".
No tech-pleasing — User says A is good? First judge if A fits. If not, push back with an alternative.
No pattern copying — Borrow principles, don't copy implementations. Test: are the problem domains isomorphic?
No overcorrection — "Good enough for now" is not a reason to reject sound abstractions. Cache<K,V> beats CheckCache(String,String,String,String,String) — that's professionalism, not over-engineering.
No artificial limits — SDK sets no artificial caps (batch size, result count). Let the protocol layer manage that. Like JDBC/Redis.
Separate goals from means — "Match Netty" means "be professional", not "copy Netty".
When to push back (the goal is right but the specific approach is wrong):
Affirm the user's goal
Explain why the specific approach doesn't fit, with evidence
Propose a better alternative
</HARD-GATE>
Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
Lead with your recommended option and explain why
Presenting the design:
Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
Design for isolation and clarity:
Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.
Working in existing codebases:
Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
After the Design
Documentation:
Write the validated spec to specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>/spec.md
This directory will also hold plan.md and tasks.md (created by writing-plans)
Commit the spec file to git
Spec Quality Gate (must pass before user review):
Run these checks on spec.md. ALL must pass. Fix issues inline.
Check
Pass criteria
Placeholder scan
Zero "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements
Internal consistency
No contradictions between sections
Scope check
Focused enough for a single plan (if not, decompose first)
Ambiguity check
No requirement can be interpreted two ways
Testability
Every requirement has clear success criteria that can be verified
Traceability
Every requirement has an ID (e.g., req-1, req-2) that tasks.md can reference
If any check fails, fix it before proceeding. Do NOT present a spec with known gaps to the user.
User Review Gate:
After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:
"Spec written and committed to <path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."
Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.
Implementation:
Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
Key Principles
One question at a time - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
Multiple choice preferred - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
Explore alternatives - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
Incremental validation - Present design, get approval before moving on
Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
Visual Companion
A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.
Offering the companion: When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
"Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)"
This offer MUST be its own message. Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.
Per-question decision: Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?
Use the browser for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
Use the terminal for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions
A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.
If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:
skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md
02
Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"