skills/think/SKILL.md
Design session. Explore problem, scan codebase, generate 2-3 approaches, recommend one, produce .godmode/spec.md.
npx skillsauth add arbazkhan971/godmode thinkInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
/godmode:think, "design", "brainstorm"PROBLEM STATEMENT:
- Goal: <one sentence>
- Constraints: <time, tech, backwards compat>
- Success criteria: <shell command that exits 0>
- Out of scope: <what this does NOT include>
IF ambiguous: offer 2 interpretations with examples
"A) You want X -- e.g. user clicks, modal appears"
"B) You want Y -- e.g. data syncs on page load"
User picks one. Proceed immediately.
IF success criteria is subjective ("works well"):
reject and propose concrete alternative
e.g., "response time < 200ms" or "tests pass"
IF greenfield (no repo): skip to Step 3.
# Project structure
git ls-files | head -150
# Entry points and configs
cat package.json 2>/dev/null \
|| cat pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null
# Existing types related to feature
grep -rn "interface\|type\|class\|def " \
--include="*.ts" --include="*.py" | head -40
# Recent changes in related areas
git log --oneline -15 -- <affected-paths>
# Test patterns
ls -la tests/ test/ __tests__/ spec/ 2>/dev/null
CODEBASE SCAN:
- Framework: <name + version>
- Patterns to reuse: <routing, error handling>
- Patterns to avoid: <deprecated patterns>
- Related code: <files in same domain>
APPROACH {A|B|C}: {name}
What: {1-2 sentences}
Why it wins: {main advantage}
Why it loses: {main disadvantage}
Files: {N} to create/modify
Disqualify any approach that:
RECOMMENDATION: Approach {A|B|C}
- Chosen because: <1-2 sentences>
- Approach B rejected: <key weakness>
- Top risk: <biggest risk>
- Mitigation: <concrete action>
IF two approaches are equal: prefer fewer files.
Write .godmode/spec.md with sections:
Problem (1-3 sentences), Approach (2-5),
Success Criteria (shell command exits 0),
Out of Scope, Files to Modify (path + what),
Files to Create (path + purpose),
Risks (risk + mitigation pairs).
Keep under 100 lines total.
# Verify referenced files exist
for f in <files_to_modify>; do
git ls-files --error-unmatch "$f"
done
# Verify new file parent dirs exist
for f in <files_to_create>; do
test -d "$(dirname "$f")" \
|| echo "MISSING: $(dirname "$f")"
done
# Verify success criteria syntax
bash -n -c '<success_criteria_cmd>' 2>&1
# Verify spec length (target <100)
wc -l .godmode/spec.md
# Commit
git add .godmode/spec.md \
&& git commit -m "spec: {feature}"
IF any validation fails: fix before committing.
Think: problem -- <goal>.
Think: scanned codebase -- <framework>, {N} files.
Think: generated {N} approaches.
Think: recommending Approach {X} -- <reason>.
Think: wrote .godmode/spec.md ({N} lines).
Spec: {path}. Approach: {chosen}. Files: {N}+{N}.
Append to .godmode/think-log.tsv:
timestamp\tfeature\tapproaches\tchosen\tfiles_modify\tfiles_create\tspec_lines\trisks
SKILL.md §14. Principles prelude (Think/Simplicity/Surgical/Goal-driven), pre-commit audit, terse/stdio/tokens, DispatchContext validation, Progressive Disclosure routing, discard cost hierarchy, and coordination patterns all fire by default. Do NOT require explicit flags; do NOT skip any of them..godmode/research.md if it exists — research auto-dispatched before think per SKILL.md §14.KEEP if: approach passes disqualification criteria
AND has testable success criteria
DISCARD if: violates constraints OR >30 files
OR no testable criteria
STOP when FIRST of:
- spec.md written, validated, and committed
- 3 approaches evaluated (max)
- >5 validation failures on spec
<!-- tier-3 -->
development
Web performance optimization. Lighthouse, bundle analysis, code splitting, image optimization, critical CSS, fonts, service workers, CDN.
development
Webhook design, delivery, retry, HMAC verification, event subscriptions, dead letter queues.
development
Vue.js mastery. Composition API, Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt SSR/SSG, Vite optimization, testing.
development
Evidence gate. Run command, read full output, confirm or deny claim. No trust, only proof.