Brainstorming

---
name: brainstorming
description: "Use when defining new features, product behavior, UI/component design, architecture choices, contract changes, or ambiguous medium/high-complexity work before implementation."
---

# Execute

→ New feature, product behavior, UI/component design, architecture/contract change, or ambiguous medium/high-complexity work? → **Design first. No implementation until the needed design/spec is approved.**
  1. Explore project context → read authority docs, check for existing patterns
  2. Ask clarifying questions one at a time (prefer multiple choice)
  3. Propose 2-3 approaches with trade-offs and your recommendation
  4. Present design sections → get user approval after each
  5. Write spec → self-review → user review → transition to writing-plans
→ HARD GATE: For tasks that match this skill, do NOT write code, scaffold projects, or invoke implementation skills until design/spec approval is satisfied.

# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs

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

Start by understanding the current project context and authority boundary, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the smallest design artifact that stabilizes the work and get the required approval.

<HARD-GATE>
Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take implementation action for work that matches this skill until you have presented the required design/spec and the user has approved it where this workflow requires approval.
</HARD-GATE>

## Route Away When It Is Small

Do not force this workflow onto low-complexity work. A tiny wording edit,
single-owner bug fix, simple config/status question, or local utility change
can proceed through concise intent, baseline check, TDD/debugging, and
verification. If uncertainty or impact grows, escalate back here and write the
smallest stabilizing spec.

## Checklist

You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:

1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits, authority docs, CONTEXT.md
2. **Choose the path and scope** — real design? diagnosis? route accordingly or decompose first
3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
4. **Draft working artifacts** — `TaskIntentDraft`, `BaselineReadSetHint`, `ImpactStatementDraft`
5. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
6. **Present design** — in sections scaled to complexity, get user approval where required
7. **Write spec artifact** — save a Spec Brief or Design Spec under `docs/aegis/specs/` when persistent requirements are needed
8. **Spec self-review** — check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope, boundary
9. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review before proceeding
10. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill (terminal state)

**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke any other implementation skill.

## The Process

**Understanding the idea:**
- Check current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
- Read relevant authority docs before asking deep questions
- If the request is diagnosis/root-cause/follow-up to an approved plan → route to correct workflow
- If the request spans multiple independent subsystems → flag and decompose first
- Ask clarifying questions one at a time, prefer multiple choice
- Separate facts, assumptions, unknowns while exploring

**Working artifacts:** Keep three drafts: `TaskIntentDraft` (outcome, goal,
success evidence, stop condition, non-goals, scope, risks),
`BaselineReadSetHint` (candidate docs, authority gaps), `ImpactStatementDraft`
(affected layers, owners, invariants, compat, non-goals). Refresh when scope
changes.

**Compact output contract:** `TaskIntentDraft`, `BaselineReadSetHint`,
`ImpactStatementDraft`, `Product Risk Lens`, `Plan-Time Complexity Check`,
`Options`, and `Decision Needed`. Use this compact shape before expanding into
a full design structure.

**Product Risk Lens:** For ambiguous product, feature, UI, workflow, or
architecture choices, add a compact review lens, not persona roleplay:

```text
Product Risk Lens:
- Value:
- Non-goals:
- Trade-offs:
- Decision needed:
```

This is a review lens, not persona output. It does not override baseline evidence,
approved requirements, or current authority docs; it only makes the product risk
and decision point visible before implementation.

**Plan-Time Complexity Check:** Before choosing an implementation direction for
medium/high work, inspect the likely owner files and current shape. This is an
advisory design pressure check, not a gate and not completion authority. Do not
force it onto tiny low-risk edits.

```text
Plan-Time Complexity Check:
- Better file boundary:
- Recommendation: edit-in-place | extract helper | add owner file | split task | defer refactor
```

Pressure signals: 800+ line source file, 80+ line block, router/manager/handler
or generic utility receiving a new responsibility, fallback/adapter/guard
growth, duplicate owner risk, or owner mismatch. A new file still needs a clear
owner, contract, and retirement story.

**Exploring approaches:** Propose 2-3 approaches with trade-offs and
recommendation. Make scope boundary explicit: what's in, what's deferred, what
belongs elsewhere.

Before approach selection, use `first-principles-review` and its
`Decision Hygiene Review` when the candidate direction introduces a new owner,
duplicate owner, fallback, adapter, compat-only carrier, delete-first question,
unverified assumption, or "long-term stable" / `长期稳定` claim. Do not make it a
universal design ceremony; return to this workflow once the decision surface is
clean.

**Presenting the design:** Scale sections to complexity. Cover only the surfaces that matter: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing, compatibility boundary. Get approval for the design before implementation when behavior, contract, architecture, or user-facing flow is being decided.

**ADR signals:** When the design/spec touches durable architecture surfaces
(owner, public contract, artifact shape, dependency direction,
source-of-truth, host compatibility, runtime-ready boundary, fallback,
adapter, or retirement schedule), mark the ADR signal, source refs, real
alternatives, and expected baseline-sync question for later completion. Do not
create accepted architecture memory from unexecuted ideas.

**Design for isolation:** Each unit = one clear purpose, well-defined interface, testable independently. Can someone understand it without reading internals? Can you change internals without breaking consumers?

**Existing codebases:** Follow existing patterns. Include targeted improvements only when they serve the current goal. If the design touches contracts, compat, fallbacks, or duplicated owners → call it out directly.

## After the Design

**Documentation:**

1. **Aegis Project Workspace initialization (first creation only):**
   If `docs/aegis/` does not exist and configured Aegis workspace support is
   available, initialize the target project:
   `python <aegis-workspace-helper> init --root <target-project-root>`.
   If installed Aegis workspace support is unavailable, create it manually:
   a. Create `docs/aegis/README.md` — describes workspace purpose and structure
   b. Create `docs/aegis/INDEX.md` — empty index, will be appended below
   c. Create `docs/aegis/BASELINE-GOVERNANCE.md` from the template in
      "BASELINE-GOVERNANCE.md Template" section below
   d. If the project has existing code, create an initial baseline snapshot:
      `docs/aegis/baseline/YYYY-MM-DD-initial-baseline.md` using the
      "Initial Baseline Snapshot Template" below
   If `docs/aegis/` already exists, use it — do not recreate.

2. **Write the validated spec artifact when needed:**
   Use the smallest artifact that stabilizes the task:
   - Spec Brief: `docs/aegis/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brief.md` for medium
     tasks that need what/why/acceptance pinned before planning.
   - Design Spec: `docs/aegis/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` for high
     complexity, architecture, contract, migration, cross-module, or ambiguous
     behavior requiring user review.
   Specs always go to `specs/` — never to `work/`.

3. **Update INDEX.md:**
   Prefer configured Aegis workspace support: `python <aegis-workspace-helper> append-index --root
   <target-project-root> --path docs/aegis/specs/<filename>.md --kind spec
   --title "<title>"`. If workspace support is unavailable, append the new spec entry
   to `docs/aegis/INDEX.md` manually.
   After the append, run `python <aegis-workspace-helper> check --root
   <target-project-root>` when configured workspace support is available. This validates
   structure and index coverage only; it does not grant completion authority.

4. Commit the design document to git.

5. Include the latest `TaskIntentDraft`, `BaselineReadSetHint`, and `ImpactStatementDraft` inline or in an appendix when they materially shaped the design.

6. Record explicit non-goals and compatibility boundaries so the later implementation plan does not drift.

**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.
5. **Boundary check:** Did you clearly mark invariants, compatibility
   boundaries, owners, non-goals, and any ADR signals for later completion
   backfill? If the spec endorses a risky approach, confirm the
   `first-principles-review` `Decision Hygiene Review` result is reflected or
   explicitly marked unnecessary.

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

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

> "Spec written and committed 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 when this workflow requires review. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves. For a small Spec Brief created only to pin medium-task acceptance, user review may be concise unless project rules require a formal approval step.

**Implementation:**

- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans 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

## BASELINE-GOVERNANCE.md Template

When creating `docs/aegis/BASELINE-GOVERNANCE.md` for the first time, use this template:

```markdown
# Baseline Governance

## 1. Architecture Defect
A confirmed error, gap, or contradiction IN the baseline itself.
- Fix baseline first, then align implementation to corrected baseline.
- Do NOT patch implementation around a defective baseline.

## 2. Architecture Drift
Implementation has deviated from a confirmed, correct baseline.
- Return to baseline via the simplest path.
- Do NOT "update baseline to match drift" without explicit review.

## 3. Baseline Check Protocol
Before non-trivial changes:
1. Read the latest baseline snapshot in `baseline/`
2. Compare current code structure against ownership map
3. Compare current contracts against contract inventory
4. Check for new anti-patterns not recorded in known list
5. Report: aligned / minor drift (self-correctable) / material drift (needs review)

## 4. Architecture Review — 7 Dimensions
After each non-trivial change:
1. **Ownership integrity** — every component has exactly one canonical owner
2. **Module boundaries** — no unauthorized cross-module coupling
3. **Contract changes** — all API/signature/behavior contract changes documented
4. **Cascade proliferation** — no new cascading dependency chains
5. **Dependency direction** — dependencies flow toward stability
6. **Retirement completeness** — old owners/fallbacks/paths removed or scheduled
7. **Entropy flow** — net complexity decreased or stayed; no unjustified new entities

## 5. Hard Boundaries
- BASELINE-GOVERNANCE.md is the constitution for THIS project's Aegis workspace
- Baseline snapshots in `baseline/` are evidence, not authority
- ADRs in `adr/` record decisions; they do not replace baseline governance
- This file is NEVER auto-updated — changes require explicit user review
```

## Initial Baseline Snapshot Template

When creating the first `docs/aegis/baseline/YYYY-MM-DD-initial-baseline.md`:

1. **Project structure** — top-level directory map, key entry points
2. **Tech stack** — language, framework, database, key dependencies
3. **Ownership mapping** — component → canonical owner file/module
4. **Contract inventory** — public APIs, published interfaces, data contracts
5. **Dependency direction convention** — which layers depend on which
6. **Test system** — framework, coverage baseline, test categories
7. **Build & deploy** — build system, CI pipeline, deploy targets
8. **Known anti-patterns** — patterns to avoid, previously identified issues
9. **Last review findings** — date, reviewer, key findings, open items
10. **Compatibility boundaries** — what must NOT break