Brainstorming

Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs

Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.

First classify the request using the paths below, then explore the project context and ask the questions needed for that path. Keep the narrow trigger: routine, well-specified work does not become a brainstorming session merely because it changes code.

Choose a path

Announce the path and why it fits so the user can correct it. If complexity grows, reassess the path before expanding the work; an unfamiliar area needs investigation before calling the change bounded.

Spike

Use for a feasibility question whose deliverable is an answer. Inspect enough context to propose the question and probe in two or three sentences. After approval, investigate with the smallest useful throwaway experiment. No specification or implementation-plan document is required.

Done when findings and a recommendation are reported, and any code is clearly marked throwaway. Keeping that code is a separate implementation decision.

Bounded

Use when the flow to change already exists and can be read in this repository. Ask the relevant questions, then present a short design in chat covering the approach, affected files, and verification. After approval, proceed through the normal implementation workflow without a specification or plan file.

Done when the short design is approved and ready for implementation. This path applies when the user requested brainstorming for the change; it does not broaden this skill's trigger.

Architectural

Use for a new project, subsystem, or changes to interfaces and component relationships. Follow the full checklist below: explore, compare approaches, agree on the design, write a specification, and plan.

Done when the written specification is approved and a concrete implementation plan is the next step.

Architectural checklist

Create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:

1. Explore project context – check files, docs, recent commits
2. Offer the visual companion just-in-time – NOT upfront. The first time a question would genuinely be clearer shown than described, offer it then (its own message); on approval its browser tab opens for you. If no visual question ever arises, never offer it. See the Visual Companion section below.
3. Ask clarifying questions – one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
4. Propose 2-3 approaches – with trade-offs and your recommendation
5. Present design – in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
6. Write design doc – save to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
7. Spec self-review – quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
8. User reviews written spec – ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
9. Transition to implementation planning – write a concrete implementation plan or invoke a planning skill only if one is available

Architectural process flow

digraph brainstorming {
    "Explore project context" [shape=box];
    "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
    "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
    "Present design sections" [shape=box];
    "User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
    "Write design doc" [shape=box];
    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
    "User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
    "Create implementation plan" [shape=doublecircle];

    "Explore project context" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
    "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
    "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
    "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
    "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
    "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
    "Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
    "User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
    "User reviews spec?" -> "Create implementation plan" [label="approved"];
}

The architectural path ends with implementation planning. If a planning skill exists, use it; otherwise write the implementation plan in the current thread. Bounded work proceeds directly after design approval; spikes end with findings.

The Process

Use the exploration guidance for bounded and architectural work. The sectioned design and written specification steps belong to the architectural path.

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:

• 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 architectural design

Documentation:

• Write the validated design (spec) to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
  • (User preferences for spec location override this default)
• Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
• Do not stage or commit the design document unless the user explicitly asks

Spec Self-Review: After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:

1. Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
2. Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
3. Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
4. Ambiguity check: Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.

Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review – just fix and move on.

User Review Gate: After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:

"Spec written 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:

• Create a detailed implementation plan. If a planning skill exists, use it; otherwise write the plan in the current thread.
• Do NOT invoke implementation skills yet. Planning 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.

The companion serves everything locally (127.0.0.1). Its upstream branding logo is a remote image and stays off unless SUPERPOWERS_BRANDING=1 is set; setting SUPERPOWERS_DISABLE_TELEMETRY, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_NONESSENTIAL_TRAFFIC also keeps all non-essential network traffic disabled.

Offering the companion (just-in-time): Do NOT offer it upfront. Wait until a question would genuinely be clearer shown than told – a real mockup / layout / diagram question, not merely a UI topic. The first time that happens, offer it then, as its own message:

"This next part might be easier if I show you – I can put together mockups, diagrams, and comparisons in a browser tab as we go. It's still new and can be token-intensive. Want me to? I'll open it for you."

This offer MUST be its own message. Only the offer – no clarifying question, summary, or other content. Wait for the user's response. If they accept, start the server with --open so their browser opens to the first screen automatically. If they decline, continue text-only and don't offer again unless they raise it.

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: .agents/skills/brainstorming/references/visual-companion.md