Forge structured-ideation playbook. Use BEFORE building when the approach isn't obvious — brainstorm, options, trade-offs, alternatives, design direction, which way to build.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ForgeyClap/claude-forge --skill forge-brainstorm --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Forge Brainstorm?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/forgeyclap-forge-brainstorm)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: forge-brainstorm
description: Forge structured-ideation playbook. Use BEFORE building when the approach isn't obvious — brainstorm, options, trade-offs, alternatives, design direction, which way to build.
---
# Forge playbook — Structured ideation (brainstorm before build)
**Do not duplicate ECC skills — defer to:** `brainstorming` (the deep design-dialogue methodology). This
file is the Forge-specific orchestration wrapper: a compact diverge → converge loop sized for a `/forge`
work package rather than a full standalone design doc.
## Hard rules
- **No implementation before a written pick + rationale.** Even a "simple" task benefits from naming the
2-3 real alternatives and why one was chosen — unexamined assumptions on "simple" work cause the most
rework.
- If the request is genuinely ambiguous in a way that changes the answer, ask 1-3 targeted questions
before diverging; otherwise pick the sensible default, state it, and proceed — never silently guess on
something consequential.
- Constraints are gathered from real project evidence (existing architecture, stack, `CLAUDE.md`,
`FORGE_PROJECT_PROFILE.md`) — not invented defaults that ignore the actual codebase.
- Do not over-invest: this is a short loop, not a multi-day design-doc process. Match the depth to the
task's real complexity/risk (see the fan-out table in `CLAUDE.md`).
## The loop (diverge → constraints → converge → smallest viable first)
1. **Diverge.** List 2-4 genuinely different approaches (not trivial variations of the same one). For
each: what it is, why it could work, and its real cost/risk.
2. **Constraints.** Apply what actually limits the choice here: existing architecture/conventions, stack,
team size/skills available, time/complexity budget (fan-out level), security/compliance posture,
anything the owner already ruled out.
3. **Converge.** Pick one approach and give the rationale in 1-3 sentences — why this one beats the
alternatives *for this project*, not in the abstract. Name what was explicitly rejected and why.
4. **Smallest viable first.** Scope the smallest slice that proves the approach works end-to-end before
building the full version — the first work package should be small enough to verify quickly, not the
whole feature at once.
## Output
A short note (inline in the plan, or `docs/` if the project already uses design docs) containing:
options considered · constraints applied · the pick + rationale · rejected alternatives + why · the
smallest-viable-first slice. This becomes the input to the next step, not an end in itself.
## Feeds into
The output of this skill is consumed by `planner`/`architect` (or the Lead directly on small tasks) to
write the actual work package(s) — `forge-brainstorm` never produces code itself; it produces the
decision that the work package is built from.

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!