brainstorming
Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs 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 you're building, present the design and get user approval.
Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
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 design can be short (a few sentences 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:
- Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
- Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
- Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
- Present design — in sections scaled to complexity, get user approval after each section
- Write design doc — save to
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.mdand commit - Spec self-review — check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
- User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
- Transition to implementation — create a concrete implementation plan
Process Flow
digraph brainstorming {
"Explore project context" [shape=box];
"Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
"Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
"Present design sections" [shape=box];
"User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
"Write design doc" [shape=box];
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
"User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
"Create implementation plan" [shape=doublecircle];
"Explore project context" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
"Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
"Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
"Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
"User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
"User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
"Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
"User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
"User reviews spec?" -> "Create implementation plan" [label="approved"];
}
The Process
Understanding the idea:
- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits).
- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea.
- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible — faster to answer and reduces ambiguity.
- Only one question per message. If a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions.
- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria, non-goals.
Exploring approaches:
- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs.
- Lead with your recommended option and explain why.
- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning.
Presenting the design:
- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design.
- 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: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing.
- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense.
Design for isolation and clarity:
- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently.
- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier to work with — you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and edits are more reliable when files are focused.
Working in existing codebases:
- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design.
- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
After the Design
Documentation:
- Write the validated design (spec) to
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md.- User preferences for spec location override this default.
- Commit the design document to git.
Spec Self-Review: After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:
- Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
- Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
- Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
- 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:
"Spec written and committed to
<path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we move to the implementation plan."
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:
- Create a concrete implementation plan before writing any code.
- If a writing-plans skill is available, invoke it. Otherwise, produce a step-by-step plan inline.
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.
More from okwinds/miscellany
prd-to-engineering-spec
Transform PRD (Product Requirements Document) into actionable engineering specifications. Creates detailed technical specs that developers can implement step-by-step without ambiguity. Covers data modeling, API design, business logic, security architecture, deployment, and agent system design. Use when: converting product requirements to technical specs, validating PRD completeness, planning technical implementation, creating task breakdowns, or defining test specifications. Triggers: 'PRD to spec', 'convert requirements', 'technical spec from PRD', 'engineering doc from requirements', 'validate PRD'.
45headless-web-viewer
Render and view webpages using a headless browser (Playwright) to fetch JS-rendered HTML, extract visible text, and optionally save full-page screenshots. Use when a user asks to “无头浏览器打开/查看网页”, needs the rendered DOM instead of raw curl HTML, or wants a screenshot of a page.
33prd-writing-guide
Write complete, unambiguous PRDs that development teams can implement without guesswork. Includes requirement discovery framework, structured documentation methodology, completeness checklists, and common pitfall avoidance. Use when: writing new PRDs, reviewing PRD drafts, validating requirement completeness, preparing for engineering handoff. Triggers: 'write PRD', '写PRD', '产品需求文档', '需求文档', '需求规格', '需求评审', '完善需求', 'create requirements doc', 'product requirements', 'feature spec', 'requirements document'. Anti-triggers: 'technical design doc', 'architecture design', 'implementation plan', 'API design', '架构设计', '技术方案', '实现方案', '接口设计'.
23codebase-spec-extractor
Extract complete, replicable engineering specifications from existing codebases. Produces documentation detailed enough to fully replicate a project without seeing the original source code—even using a different tech stack. Use when: analyzing existing projects, documenting legacy systems, creating technical specs from code, preparing for system migration, or onboarding new teams. Triggers: 'extract spec from code', 'document codebase', 'analyze project architecture', 'create spec from existing system'.
16pptx-offline
PPTX 文档离线读写:解析/替换/重排/缩略图、OOXML 解包编辑回包,以及 html2pptx(HTML→PPT)工作流。适用于生成与维护演示文稿(依赖安装可能需要网络)。
14prd-to-uiux-rd-spec
从产品 PRD 产出“复刻级可落地”的 UI/UX 研发规格文档包(目录同构骨架、公共基座、组件/页面契约、覆盖映射、索引与 worklog)。适用于需要把 PRD 转成前端可复刻实现的规格文档、UI/UX 研发规格、界面契约与验收标准的场景;避免用于只要视觉灵感/纯 UI 赏析或直接写代码实现的请求。
14