dot_claude/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md
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 | コードや実装計画を書く前に、何かを作成・開発する際に使用 - 体系的なソクラテス式の問いかけ、代替案の探索、段階的な検証を通じて、粗いアイデアを完成度の高い設計に洗練
npx skillsauth add lv416e/dotfiles brainstormingInstall 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.
Transform rough ideas into fully-formed designs through structured questioning and alternative exploration.
Core principle: Research first, ask targeted questions to fill gaps, explore alternatives, present design incrementally for validation.
Announce at start: "I'm using the brainstorming skill to refine your idea into a design."
| Phase | Key Activities | Tool Usage | Output | |-------|---------------|------------|--------| | Prep: Autonomous Recon | Inspect repo/docs/commits, form initial model | Native tools (ls, cat, git log, etc.) | Draft understanding to confirm | | 1. Understanding | Share findings, ask only for missing context | AskUserQuestion for real decisions | Purpose, constraints, criteria (confirmed) | | 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 | | 4. Design Documentation | Write design document | writing-clearly-and-concisely skill | Design doc in docs/plans/ | | 5. Worktree Setup | Set up isolated workspace | using-git-worktrees skill | Ready development environment | | 6. Planning Handoff | Create implementation plan | writing-plans skill | Detailed task breakdown |
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 docs/plans/)
- [ ] Phase 5: Worktree Setup (if implementing)
- [ ] Phase 6: Planning Handoff (if implementing)
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: "Which architectural approach should we use?"
Options:
- "Direct API calls with retry logic" (simple, synchronous, easier to debug) ← recommended for current scope
- "Event-driven with message queue" (scalable, complex setup, eventual consistency)
- "Hybrid with background jobs" (balanced, moderate complexity, best of both)
I recommend the direct API approach because it matches existing patterns and minimizes new infrastructure. Let me know if you see a blocker that pushes us toward the other options.
After validating the design, write it to a permanent document:
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md (use actual date and descriptive topic)When design is approved and implementation will follow:
Ask: "Ready to create the implementation plan?"
When your human partner confirms (any affirmative response):
Use AskUserQuestion when:
Best practices:
Use open-ended questions for:
Frame them to confirm or expand your current understanding rather than reopening settled topics.
Example decision flow:
digraph revisit_phases {
rankdir=LR;
"New constraint revealed?" [shape=diamond];
"Partner questions approach?" [shape=diamond];
"Requirements unclear?" [shape=diamond];
"Return to Phase 1" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
"Return to Phase 2" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffffcc"];
"Continue forward" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
"New constraint revealed?" -> "Return to Phase 1" [label="yes"];
"New constraint revealed?" -> "Partner questions approach?" [label="no"];
"Partner questions approach?" -> "Return to Phase 2" [label="yes"];
"Partner questions approach?" -> "Requirements unclear?" [label="no"];
"Requirements unclear?" -> "Return to Phase 1" [label="yes"];
"Requirements unclear?" -> "Continue forward" [label="no"];
}
You can and should go backward when:
Avoid forcing forward linearly when going backward would give better results.
| Principle | Application | |-----------|-------------| | One question at a time | Phase 1: Single targeted question only for gaps you can’t close yourself | | 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 | | Own the initiative | Recommend priorities and next steps; ask if you should proceed only when requirements conflict | | Announce usage | State skill usage at start of session |
development
Use this skill any time a spreadsheet file is the primary input or output. This means any task where the user wants to: open, read, edit, or fix an existing .xlsx, .xlsm, .csv, or .tsv file (e.g., adding columns, computing formulas, formatting, charting, cleaning messy data); create a new spreadsheet from scratch or from other data sources; or convert between tabular file formats. Trigger especially when the user references a spreadsheet file by name or path — even casually (like "the xlsx in my downloads") — and wants something done to it or produced from it. Also trigger for cleaning or restructuring messy tabular data files (malformed rows, misplaced headers, junk data) into proper spreadsheets. The deliverable must be a spreadsheet file. Do NOT trigger when the primary deliverable is a Word document, HTML report, standalone Python script, database pipeline, or Google Sheets API integration, even if tabular data is involved.
testing
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment - applies TDD to process documentation by testing with subagents before writing, iterating until bulletproof against rationalization | 新しいスキルの作成、既存スキルの編集、またはデプロイ前にスキルが機能するか検証する際に使用 - プロセスドキュメントにTDDを適用し、記述前にサブエージェントでテストし、合理化に対して堅牢になるまで反復
development
Use when design is complete and you need detailed implementation tasks for engineers with zero codebase context - creates comprehensive implementation plans with exact file paths, complete code examples, and verification steps assuming engineer has minimal domain knowledge | 設計が完了し、コードベースの知識がゼロのエンジニア向けに詳細な実装タスクが必要な場合に使用 - 正確なファイルパス、完全なコード例、検証ステップを含む包括的な実装計画を作成。エンジニアの領域知識が最小限であることを前提
tools
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.