synaptiai/brainstorming

Brainstorming

Domain skill for multi-option exploration and collaborative decision-making before implementation.

Iron Law

EXPLORE BEFORE COMMITTING. The cost of choosing wrong is 10x the cost of exploring options.

Every hour spent exploring saves a day of rework from the wrong approach.

When to Brainstorm

• Multiple valid approaches exist (and you know it)
• Requirements are unclear or ambiguous
• New territory — no existing patterns to follow
• User says "help me think through" or "what are our options"
• You catch yourself defaulting to the first idea

Exploration Process

Track the brainstorming lifecycle with tasks:

TaskCreate("Clarify goal", "Confirm what, why, who before generating options")
TaskCreate("Check existing patterns", "Search codebase for how similar problems are solved")
TaskCreate("Generate approaches", "Produce 2-4 distinct approaches with pros, cons, effort, risk")
TaskCreate("Compare and recommend", "Build comparison table, highlight trade-offs, recommend")
TaskCreate("User decision", "Present recommendation, get user choice, log decision")

1. Clarify the Goal

TaskUpdate("Clarify goal", status: "in_progress")

Before generating options, confirm you understand:

• What needs to happen (outcome, not implementation)
• Why it needs to happen (motivation, constraints)
• Who is affected (users, systems, team)

Use AskUserQuestion if the goal is ambiguous. Don't guess.

TaskUpdate("Clarify goal", status: "completed")

2. Check Existing Patterns

TaskUpdate("Check existing patterns", status: "in_progress")

Before proposing new approaches, see what the codebase already does:

# How does the project handle similar problems?
grep -r "relevant_pattern" --include="*.{ts,js,py,rb}" -l
git log --oneline --all --grep="related keyword" | head -10

Existing patterns get priority — consistency has value.

TaskUpdate("Check existing patterns", status: "completed")

3. Generate 2-4 Approaches

TaskUpdate("Generate approaches", status: "in_progress")

For each approach, fill out:

| Field | Content | |-------|---------| | Name | Short, memorable label | | Summary | One-line description | | Pros | Bullet list of advantages | | Cons | Bullet list of disadvantages | | Effort | Small / Medium / Large | | Risk | Low / Medium / High |

Rules:

• Minimum 2 approaches, maximum 4
• Approaches must be genuinely distinct (not minor variations)
• Include the "do nothing" or "simplest possible" option when applicable
• Each approach must be implementable — no hand-waving

TaskUpdate("Generate approaches", status: "completed")

4. Compare Trade-offs

TaskUpdate("Compare and recommend", status: "in_progress")

Build a comparison table across key dimensions:

| Dimension | Approach A | Approach B | Approach C | |-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Simplicity | | | | | Flexibility | | | | | Performance | | | | | Consistency | | | | | Effort | | | | | Risk | | | |

TaskUpdate("Compare and recommend", status: "completed")

5. Recommend and Decide

TaskUpdate("User decision", status: "in_progress")

• State your recommendation with rationale
• Highlight the most important trade-off
• Let the user choose — recommendation is not a decision
• Use AskUserQuestion for the final decision

TaskUpdate("User decision", status: "completed") after user selects an approach. Use TaskList to confirm the full brainstorming lifecycle completed.

Trade-Off Dimensions

Common dimensions to evaluate (pick the relevant ones):

| Dimension | Tension | |-----------|---------| | Simplicity vs Flexibility | Simple now vs adaptable later | | Speed vs Correctness | Ship fast vs get it right | | Consistency vs Innovation | Follow patterns vs better approach | | Build vs Buy | Custom solution vs existing library | | Coupling vs Convenience | Decoupled modules vs easy implementation | | Explicit vs Implicit | Verbose but clear vs concise but magical |

Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Symptom | Fix | |-------------|---------|-----| | Analysis paralysis | >4 options, endless comparison | Cap at 4. Decide with available info. | | False dichotomy | "We can only do A or B" | Challenge the constraint. Usually there's a C. | | Bikeshedding | 30 min debating variable names | Is this decision reversible? If yes, just pick one. | | Anchoring | First option dominates discussion | Present all options before discussing any. | | Groupthink | Everyone agrees immediately | Play devil's advocate. What could go wrong? |

Rationalization Prevention

| Excuse | Response | |--------|----------| | "Let's just go with the obvious approach" | Obvious to whom? Explore first, then decide. | | "We don't have time to brainstorm" | You don't have time to rewrite after choosing wrong. | | "I've done this before, I know the best way" | Great. Then documenting why takes 2 minutes. Do it. | | "All approaches are roughly the same" | Then pick the simplest. If they're truly equivalent, simplicity wins. |