166 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
166 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: brainstorming
|
|
description: "Before engaging in product definition work, use this skill to explore user intent, needs, and scope before PRD writing."
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Brainstorming Ideas Into Product Direction
|
|
|
|
Help turn ideas into clear product direction and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what problem is being solved, present the product direction and get user approval.
|
|
|
|
<HARD-GATE>
|
|
Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a product direction and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
|
|
</HARD-GATE>
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need Product Definition"
|
|
|
|
Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change - all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The output can be short for truly simple projects, but you MUST present it and get approval.
|
|
|
|
## Checklist
|
|
|
|
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
|
|
|
|
1. **Explore project context** - check docs, existing product behavior, and recent decisions
|
|
- If the user asks for market context or competitor understanding first, invoke `market-research` before proposing approaches and treat `docs/research/{date}-{topic}.md` as an upstream input artifact
|
|
2. **Offer visual companion** (if topic will involve visual questions) - this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below.
|
|
3. **Ask clarifying questions** - one at a time, understand purpose, constraints, success criteria, and scope boundaries
|
|
4. **Propose 2-3 product approaches** - with trade-offs and your recommendation
|
|
5. **Present product direction** - in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
|
|
6. **Write product direction doc** - save to `docs/brainstorm/{date}-{feature}-design.md`
|
|
7. **Spec self-review** - quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, and scope (see below)
|
|
8. **User reviews written spec** - ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
|
|
9. **Transition to PRD writing** - invoke `write-a-prd`
|
|
|
|
## Process Flow
|
|
|
|
```dot
|
|
digraph brainstorming {
|
|
"Explore project context" [shape=box];
|
|
"Visual questions ahead?" [shape=diamond];
|
|
"Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [shape=box];
|
|
"Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
|
|
"Propose 2-3 product approaches" [shape=box];
|
|
"Present product direction" [shape=box];
|
|
"User approves direction?" [shape=diamond];
|
|
"Write product direction doc" [shape=box];
|
|
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
|
|
"User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
|
|
"Invoke write-a-prd" [shape=doublecircle];
|
|
|
|
"Explore project context" -> "Visual questions ahead?";
|
|
"Visual questions ahead?" -> "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [label="yes"];
|
|
"Visual questions ahead?" -> "Ask clarifying questions" [label="no"];
|
|
"Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
|
|
"Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 product approaches";
|
|
"Propose 2-3 product approaches" -> "Present product direction";
|
|
"Present product direction" -> "User approves direction?";
|
|
"User approves direction?" -> "Present product direction" [label="no, revise"];
|
|
"User approves direction?" -> "Write product direction doc" [label="yes"];
|
|
"Write product direction doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
|
|
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
|
|
"User reviews spec?" -> "Write product direction doc" [label="changes requested"];
|
|
"User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke write-a-prd" [label="approved"];
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**The terminal state is invoking `write-a-prd`.** Do NOT invoke any implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is `write-a-prd`.
|
|
|
|
## The Process
|
|
|
|
**Understanding the idea:**
|
|
|
|
- Check out the current project state first (docs, existing product behavior, recent commits) only to understand product context and constraints
|
|
- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems, flag this immediately
|
|
- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects, then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal flow
|
|
- 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
|
|
- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria, target users, and release boundaries
|
|
|
|
**Exploring approaches:**
|
|
|
|
- Propose 2-3 different product approaches with trade-offs
|
|
- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
|
|
- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
|
|
|
|
**Presenting the product direction:**
|
|
|
|
- Once you believe you understand what you're defining, present the product direction
|
|
- 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: target users, workflow, scope boundaries, edge cases, risks, success criteria, and release trade-offs
|
|
- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
|
|
|
|
**Design for product clarity:**
|
|
|
|
- Break the product problem into smaller user-facing outcomes or workflow slices with one clear purpose each
|
|
- For each slice, answer: who is it for, what problem does it solve, when does it happen, and what counts as success?
|
|
- If a requirement can only be explained through internal architecture, it is likely too implementation-specific for this stage
|
|
- Smaller, well-bounded scopes reduce ambiguity and make downstream engineering planning easier
|
|
|
|
**Working in existing codebases:**
|
|
|
|
- Explore the current product behavior, docs, and user-facing constraints before proposing changes
|
|
- Use existing behavior to understand what users already expect, what constraints already exist, and what should stay out of scope
|
|
- Do not propose refactoring, architecture cleanup, or implementation improvements in this skill
|
|
|
|
## After the Product Direction
|
|
|
|
**Documentation:**
|
|
|
|
- Write the validated product direction (spec) to `docs/brainstorm/{date}-{feature}-design.md`
|
|
- (User preferences for spec location override this default)
|
|
- If a research brief exists, cite the key findings that influenced scope, table stakes, differentiation, risks, or NFR expectations
|
|
|
|
**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? Do the goals, scope, and acceptance expectations align?
|
|
3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single PRD, 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:
|
|
|
|
> "The spec document has been written and submitted to `<path>`. Before we start writing the PRD, please review it and let me know if you need any changes made."
|
|
|
|
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:**
|
|
|
|
- Invoke `write-a-prd` using `docs/brainstorm/{date}-{feature}-design.md` as the primary input artifact and `docs/research/{date}-{topic}.md` as an optional supporting input artifact
|
|
- Do NOT invoke any other skill. `write-a-prd` 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 proposals
|
|
- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
|
|
- **Incremental validation** - Present direction, get approval before moving on
|
|
- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
|
|
- **Stay product-level** - Do not design architecture or implementation details
|
|
|
|
## 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.
|
|
|
|
**Offering the companion:** When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
|
|
> "Some of what we're working on would be easier to explain if shown in a web browser. I can prepare mockups, diagrams, side-by-sides, and other visuals for you anytime. This feature is new and uses more tokens. Want to try it out? (Requires opening a local URL)"
|
|
|
|
**This offer MUST be its own message.** Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.
|
|
|
|
**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, workflow 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:
|
|
`skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md`
|