synaptiai Brainstorming
Contract
Iron law: explore before committing — choosing wrong costs ten times what exploring costs. Invoked by /flow:brainstorm Phase 2 (GENERATE), Phase 3 (COMPARE), and Phase 4 (DECIDE), and whenever several valid approaches exist, requirements are ambiguous, or the team defaults to its first idea. Returns 2–4 genuinely distinct, implementable approaches (name, summary, pros, cons, effort, risk), a comparison table across the dimensions that matter for this decision, a recommendation with its key trade-off, and the user's choice via AskUserQuestion, logged to the decision journal. Permitted skips: none — the recommendation is never the decision; the user chooses.
Process
Track five tasks — clarify goal, check existing patterns, generate approaches, compare and recommend, user decision — and confirm with TaskList at the end.
1. Clarify the goal
Confirm what must happen (outcome, not implementation), why (motivation, constraints), and who is affected. Ambiguous → AskUserQuestion; do not guess.
2. Check existing patterns
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.
3. Generate 2–4 approaches
Per approach: Name, Summary (one line), Pros, Cons, Effort (Small/Medium/Large), Risk (Low/Medium/High).
Rules:
- Minimum 2, maximum 4. More than 4 is analysis paralysis — cap and decide with available information.
- Genuinely distinct, not minor variations; "we can only do A or B" usually hides a C.
- Include the "do nothing" or "simplest possible" option when applicable.
- Each must be implementable — no hand-waving.
- Present all options before discussing any, so the first does not anchor.
4. Compare
| Dimension | Approach A | Approach B | Approach C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simplicity | |||
| Flexibility | |||
| Performance | |||
| Consistency | |||
| Effort | |||
| Risk |
Pick the dimensions relevant to THIS decision from these tensions: Simplicity vs Flexibility, Speed vs Correctness, Consistency vs Innovation, Build vs Buy, Coupling vs Convenience, Explicit vs Implicit.
5. Recommend and decide
State the recommendation with rationale and the single most important trade-off. Play devil's advocate on your own pick — what could go wrong? Then AskUserQuestion for the decision and log it.
Not Reasons to Skip
"The obvious approach", "no time to brainstorm", "I've done this before" — documenting why takes minutes; rework from a wrong choice takes days. If all approaches are truly equivalent, pick the simplest and say so. If the decision is cheaply reversible (naming, formatting), pick one and move on rather than bikeshed.