KevinZai /ccc-brainstorm — Design-First Ideation Gate
Before writing code or specs, generate 3 distinct alternatives. Forces designer-mode thinking and surfaces tradeoffs early. No code is written during this skill — only decisions are made.
Triggers
/ccc-brainstormor/brainstorm- "how should I build X"
- "which approach should I take"
- "I'm torn between X and Y"
- "help me decide on [auth / DB / design system / API shape]"
- "explore options for"
- "what are my choices for"
When NOT to Use
- Fixing a bug with an obvious solution (use
/ccc-reviewor just fix it) - Well-known patterns where the answer is already standard (e.g., "how do I add a .env file")
- Tasks with a single correct answer (use
/ccc-plandirectly) - Mid-implementation pivots where switching costs exceed the decision value
Process
Step 1 — Capture the question
If no argument provided, call AskUserQuestion:
question: "What are we brainstorming?"
options:
- label: "🆕 New feature design"
description: "You have a feature idea and want to explore approaches before writing any code."
- label: "🔀 Choosing between approaches"
description: "You have 2–3 candidates and need to compare them rigorously."
- label: "🎨 UI/UX decision"
description: "Layout, component library, interaction model, visual system."
- label: "🏗️ Architecture choice"
description: "DB schema, service boundary, auth strategy, data model."
- label: "✏️ Free-form — I'll describe it"
description: "Type your question in the next prompt."
Accept the free-form description as the brainstorm topic.
Step 2 — Spawn 3 parallel micro-agents
Fire 3 Agent calls simultaneously. Each agent receives this base context:
Topic: {user_topic}
Codebase context: {relevant files or stack, if provided}
Agent A — Simplest Possible Prompt:
"You are evaluating the SIMPLEST possible solution for: {topic}. What is the most direct, boring, fewest-moving-parts approach? No abstractions, no future-proofing. Return: name (5 words max), summary (2–3 sentences), pros (3 bullets), cons (3 bullets), risks (1–2 bullets), reversibility (easy / medium / hard), best_for (one line)."
Agent B — Scalable / Future-Proof Prompt:
"You are evaluating the MOST SCALABLE solution for: {topic}. What would you build if you expected 10× load or scope in 12 months? Return: name (5 words max), summary (2–3 sentences), pros (3 bullets), cons (3 bullets), risks (1–2 bullets), reversibility (easy / medium / hard), best_for (one line)."
Agent C — User-Delight First Prompt:
"You are evaluating the most USER-DELIGHT-FIRST solution for: {topic}. What would a product designer obsessed with developer or end-user experience build, temporarily ignoring infrastructure cost? Return: name (5 words max), summary (2–3 sentences), pros (3 bullets), cons (3 bullets), risks (1–2 bullets), reversibility (easy / medium / hard), best_for (one line)."
All 3 must run before proceeding. Do not short-circuit to one agent.
Step 3 — Render tradeoff matrix
After all 3 agents return, render this table in chat:
| Criterion | Path A (Simple) | Path B (Scalable) | Path C (Delight) |
|------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-----------------|
| Implementation | [est. hours] | [est. hours] | [est. hours] |
| Reversibility | Easy/Med/Hard | Easy/Med/Hard | Easy/Med/Hard |
| Top pro | ... | ... | ... |
| Top con | ... | ... | ... |
| Top risk | ... | ... | ... |
| Best for | ... | ... | ... |
Populate with the agent outputs. This table is reference material — the decision chip is what actually captures the choice.
Step 4 — Synthesize and present choice
Call AskUserQuestion:
question: "Three paths explored — which direction resonates?"
options:
- label: "⚡ Path A — [Simple name]"
description: "[Agent A 2-sentence summary]"
- label: "🚀 Path B — [Scalable name]"
description: "[Agent B 2-sentence summary]"
- label: "✨ Path C — [Delight-first name]"
description: "[Agent C 2-sentence summary]"
- label: "🔀 Hybrid — combine elements"
description: "Describe which parts to mix in the next message."
- label: "🔁 Run again with different constraints"
description: "Adjust the lens (cost / speed / risk) and re-brainstorm."
Step 5 — Lock the direction
Once the user picks, output exactly:
## Decision
**Chosen path:** [name]
**Key tradeoff accepted:** [one sentence — what you're giving up and why it's worth it]
**Next step:** [/ccc-plan to write a spec] or [/ccc-build to scaffold]
Never write code or create files during this skill.
Examples
Example 1 — Choosing an auth strategy
/ccc-brainstorm "auth strategy for a B2B SaaS — do I use Clerk, Auth.js, or roll my own JWT?"
Agent A returns: "Roll your own JWT — dead simple, no vendor lock-in, 4 hours to ship." Agent B returns: "Clerk — hosted, scales to SSO/SAML with one SDK call, 30 min to ship." Agent C returns: "Clerk + magic links — passwordless UX, branded email, zero friction login."
Matrix surfaces: Clerk is highly reversible (eject any time), Auth.js needs infra, custom JWT is medium-risk.
Decision chip: user picks Path B (Clerk). Output locks: "Chosen: Clerk. Tradeoff: $25/mo vs. zero maintenance overhead. Next: /ccc-plan."
Example 2 — Picking a database
/ccc-brainstorm "should this app use Postgres, SQLite, or Turso for a low-traffic personal tool?"
Agent A: SQLite — single file, zero ops, works locally and on Fly.io with LiteFS. Agent B: Postgres on Supabase — standard, row-level security, growth path. Agent C: Turso — edge-replicated SQLite, great DX, fast reads globally.
Matrix shows SQLite reversibility is easy (file copy = backup), Postgres medium, Turso medium.
Example 3 — Design system pick
/ccc-brainstorm "shadcn/ui vs Radix primitives vs Tailwind UI for a dashboard project"
Agent A: shadcn/ui — copy-paste components, no runtime dependency, full ownership. Agent B: Radix primitives — headless, accessible, maximum customization control. Agent C: Tailwind UI — polished designs, pro license, fastest to ship a good-looking product.
Attribution
Adapted from superpowers/brainstorming — MIT licensed.
⚙️ Fable contract: plan before build · verifier ≠ worker · prove before alarm · loops need gates · leave durable state —
rules/fable-method.md