Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Start by classifying how much process the request needs, then work
through your path: understand the context, refine the idea, present a
design, and get your human partner's approval.
Three Paths
Before your first question, classify the request and say the
classification out loud — "this looks bounded, so I'll present a short
design here rather than write a spec" — so your human partner can
override it:
- Spike — a feasibility question ("can we...", "is it possible...",
"quick and dirty is fine") whose output is an answer, not code you
keep. Present the question and what you'll try in 2-3 sentences, get
a nod, then find out as cheaply as correctness allows. No design
doc, no spec file. Report findings as a recommendation; anything you
built stays labeled throwaway.
- Bounded — a well-scoped change to code that already exists in
this repo: a new flag, a small endpoint, a one-file fix.
Understanding the kind of app is not enough — bounded means the flow
you are changing is already here to read. If there is no existing
flow to change, the task is not bounded. Ask the clarifying
questions that matter, present a short design IN CHAT (a few
sentences to a few short paragraphs), and STOP. Implementation
starts only after your human partner says yes to that design — a
bounded task's approval is as hard a gate as an architectural
one. No spec file, no implementation plan document.
- Architectural — new projects, new subsystems, changes that
restructure how components fit together or alter interfaces others
depend on. Follow the full process: questions, approaches, sectioned
design, written spec, then the writing-plans skill.
When in doubt between two paths, take the heavier one. The ratchet is
one-way: hidden complexity discovered mid-task upgrades the path —
stop, say so, and step up. Nothing downgrades mid-task.
Anti-Pattern: "Too Simple To Need Approval"
Every path ends with your human partner approving your intent before
implementation. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config
change — the design may be two sentences in chat, but you MUST present
it and get approval. "Simple" tasks are where unexamined assumptions
cause the most wasted work. What scales with simplicity is the
artifact, never the approval.
Red Flags
| Thought |
Reality |
| "This is too simple to need a design" |
Simple means a short design, not no design. Two sentences in chat, then approval. |
| "I'll call it bounded and skip the spec" |
Reaching for a label to skip work IS the doubt — take the heavier path. |
| "It's bounded and the design is obvious — I'll start while they read it" |
The gate is the approval, not the design's length. Present, then stop until you hear yes. |
| "I understand this kind of app, so it's bounded" |
Bounded measures the repo, not your familiarity. A new project has no existing flow — it is architectural. |
| "The spike works, so I'll keep the code" |
A spike's output is an answer. Keeping the code is a new request — classify it. |
| "It grew, but I'm almost done — no need to re-classify" |
Hidden complexity upgrades the path mid-task. Stop and say so. |
| "They approved the spike, so the follow-up change is approved too" |
Each task gets its own classification and its own approval. |
Checklist
Classify first, announce the path, then create a task for each item on
your path and complete them in order.
Spike:
- Explore project context — enough to frame the probe
- Present question + probe plan — 2-3 sentences
- Get approval — a nod is enough
- Investigate — as cheaply as correctness allows
- Report findings — a recommendation; label anything built as throwaway
Bounded:
- Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
- Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, the ones that matter
- Present short design in chat — approach, files touched, testing
- Get approval — STOP and wait for an explicit yes; presenting the design and starting in the same breath is skipping the gate
- Implement — proceed with the normal development workflow (TDD applies); no plan document
Architectural:
- Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
- 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 of
1---2name: brainstorming-23description: You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.4---5
6
7# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
8
9Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
10
11Start by classifying how much process the request needs, then work
12through your path: understand the context, refine the idea, present a
13design, and get your human partner's approval.
14
15<HARD-GATE>
16Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any
17project, or take any implementation action until you have told your
18human partner what you intend and they have approved it. This applies
19to EVERY task on EVERY path below — the ceremony scales with the task;
20the approval gate never does.
21</HARD-GATE>
22
23## Three Paths
24
25Before your first question, classify the request and say the
26classification out loud — "this looks bounded, so I'll present a short
27design here rather than write a spec" — so your human partner can
28override it:
29
30- **Spike** — a feasibility question ("can we...", "is it possible...",
31 "quick and dirty is fine") whose output is an answer, not code you
32 keep. Present the question and what you'll try in 2-3 sentences, get
33 a nod, then find out as cheaply as correctness allows. No design
34 doc, no spec file. Report findings as a recommendation; anything you
35 built stays labeled throwaway.
36- **Bounded** — a well-scoped change to code that already exists in
37 this repo: a new flag, a small endpoint, a one-file fix.
38 Understanding the kind of app is not enough — bounded means the flow
39 you are changing is already here to read. If there is no existing
40 flow to change, the task is not bounded. Ask the clarifying
41 questions that matter, present a short design IN CHAT (a few
42 sentences to a few short paragraphs), and STOP. Implementation
43 starts only after your human partner says yes to that design — a
44 bounded task's approval is as hard a gate as an architectural
45 one. No spec file, no implementation plan document.
46- **Architectural** — new projects, new subsystems, changes that
47 restructure how components fit together or alter interfaces others
48 depend on. Follow the full process: questions, approaches, sectioned
49 design, written spec, then the writing-plans skill.
50
51When in doubt between two paths, take the heavier one. The ratchet is
52one-way: hidden complexity discovered mid-task upgrades the path —
53stop, say so, and step up. Nothing downgrades mid-task.
54
55## Anti-Pattern: "Too Simple To Need Approval"
56
57Every path ends with your human partner approving your intent before
58implementation. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config
59change — the design may be two sentences in chat, but you MUST present
60it and get approval. "Simple" tasks are where unexamined assumptions
61cause the most wasted work. What scales with simplicity is the
62artifact, never the approval.
63
64## Red Flags
65
66| Thought | Reality |
67|---------|---------|
68| "This is too simple to need a design" | Simple means a short design, not no design. Two sentences in chat, then approval. |
69| "I'll call it bounded and skip the spec" | Reaching for a label to skip work IS the doubt — take the heavier path. |
70| "It's bounded and the design is obvious — I'll start while they read it" | The gate is the approval, not the design's length. Present, then stop until you hear yes. |
71| "I understand this kind of app, so it's bounded" | Bounded measures the repo, not your familiarity. A new project has no existing flow — it is architectural. |
72| "The spike works, so I'll keep the code" | A spike's output is an answer. Keeping the code is a new request — classify it. |
73| "It grew, but I'm almost done — no need to re-classify" | Hidden complexity upgrades the path mid-task. Stop and say so. |
74| "They approved the spike, so the follow-up change is approved too" | Each task gets its own classification and its own approval. |
75
76## Checklist
77
78Classify first, announce the path, then create a task for each item on
79your path and complete them in order.
80
81**Spike:**
821. **Explore project context** — enough to frame the probe
832. **Present question + probe plan** — 2-3 sentences
843. **Get approval** — a nod is enough
854. **Investigate** — as cheaply as correctness allows
865. **Report findings** — a recommendation; label anything built as throwaway
87
88**Bounded:**
891. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
902. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, the ones that matter
913. **Present short design in chat** — approach, files touched, testing
924. **Get approval** — STOP and wait for an explicit yes; presenting the design and starting in the same breath is skipping the gate
935. **Implement** — proceed with the normal development workflow (TDD applies); no plan document
94
95**Architectural:**
961. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
972. **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 of
ranbot-ai