brainstorming · Claude / Claude Code · OpenAI · Codex · Gemini CLI · Grok Build
만들 기능의 목적, 제약과 설계 선택지를 먼저 정리합니다.
아이디어가 생겼다고 곧바로 코딩하면 나중에 방향을 바꾸는 일이 많아집니다. 이 스킬은 구현 전에 목적, 제약, 설계 선택지를 대화로 정리하는 단계에 맞습니다.
해결하려는 문제와 사용자를 먼저 설명해보세요. 꼭 필요한 기능과 나중에 해도 되는 기능을 구분하며 검토 가능한 설계로 구체화할 수 있습니다.
“직장인을 위한 자료 저장소를 만들고 싶어. 사용자가 가장 먼저 해야 할 일부터 정하고 첫 버전에 필요한 기능을 골라줘.”
받을 수 있는 결과검토 가능한 기능 설계
사용 중인 코딩 에이전트에 Superpowers를 설치해야 합니다. 에이전트별 제공 도구는 다를 수 있습니다.
사용하는 환경에 맞는 방법 하나를 선택하세요. Superpowers 전체 패키지를 설치하고 새 세션에서 작업을 요청하면 관련 스킬이 호출됩니다.
Claude Code: /plugin install superpowers@claude-plugins-official Codex 앱: Plugins → Coding → Superpowers 설치 Codex CLI: /plugins → Superpowers → Install Plugin Gemini CLI 터미널: gemini extensions install https://github.com/obra/superpowers
“brainstorming 스킬을 사용해줘. 입력 자료: 아이디어와 해결할 문제”처럼 요청하세요. 위의 예시를 내 자료에 맞게 바꿔도 좋아요.
예상 결과는 ‘검토 가능한 기능 설계’입니다. 필요한 내용이 포함됐는지 확인하세요. 입력 자료의 사실·숫자와 결과를 대조하고, 부족한 부분을 이어서 요청하세요.
제작자 원본 2026-10-04 확인 · 설치 안내 2026-10-04 확인 · 실제 설치·실행 미검증
모델 사용 요금과 연결 앱 요금은 이용 중인 서비스의 정책을 따릅니다.
설치 안내 출처--- name: brainstorming description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation." --- # Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue. Start by classifying how much process the request needs, then work through your path: understand the context, refine the idea, present a design, and get your human partner's approval. ## Establish Shared Understanding The outcome of brainstorming is an understanding your human partner can recognize and correct, grounded in what they want to accomplish. 1. **Discover intent.** Use the request and available context to identify the intended outcome, who it is for, and what success looks like. When that information is missing, ask one focused question about purpose or intended use before proposing features or an approach. Knowing the app genre does not tell you why your partner wants it. Gathering missing requirements does not ask them to authorize the task again. 2. **Write back your understanding.** Summarize the intended outcome,--- name: brainstorming description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation." --- # Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue. Start by classifying how much process the request needs, then work through your path: understand the context, refine the idea, present a design, and get your human partner's approval. ## Establish Shared Understanding The outcome of brainstorming is an understanding your human partner can recognize and correct, grounded in what they want to accomplish. 1. **Discover intent.** Use the request and available context to identify the intended outcome, who it is for, and what success looks like. When that information is missing, ask one focused question about purpose or intended use before proposing features or an approach. Knowing the app genre does not tell you why your partner wants it. Gathering missing requirements does not ask them to authorize the task again. 2. **Write back your understanding.** Summarize the intended outcome, relevant constraints, and success criteria in a short note your partner can assess. Separate what they said from assumptions. Invite correction and incorporate their answer before treating this as the design brief. 3. **Carry intent into the design.** Preserve the agreed understanding in the selected path's design artifact: the written spec for architectural work, or the in-chat design/probe for bounded work and spikes. Check proposed features and technical choices against that understanding. When the request already supplies the purpose and constraints, reflect that understanding instead of asking the same questions again. Keep the note concise; its accuracy and the opportunity to correct it matter. <HARD-GATE> Before taking any implementation action, including invoking an implementation skill, writing product code, scaffolding, installing product dependencies, or creating an external project, complete the selected path's prerequisites: - Spike: the human partner approves the question and probe. - Bounded: the human partner approves the short in-chat design. - Architectural: the human partner reviews and approves the written spec, then reviews the written implementation plan and selects its execution method. Conversational design approval only permits writing the spec; written-spec approval only permits invoking writing-plans. A reply approves the stage actually presented. Approval of an idea or feature scope does not approve artifacts that do not exist yet. Resume at the earliest incomplete stage; do not turn one approval into permission to skip the rest of the selected path. Read-only project exploration is allowed while those prerequisites remain incomplete. </HARD-GATE> ## Three Paths Before your first question, classify the request and say the classification out loud — "this looks bounded, so I'll present a short design here rather than write a spec" — so your human partner can override it: - **Spike** — a feasibility question ("can we...", "is it possible...", "quick and dirty is fine") whose output is an answer, not code you keep. Present the question and what you'll try in 2-3 sentences, get a nod, then find out as cheaply as correctness allows. No design doc, no spec file. Report findings as a recommendation; anything you built stays labeled throwaway. - **Bounded** — a well-scoped change to code that already exists in this repo: a new flag, a small endpoint, a one-file fix. Understanding the kind of app is not enough — bounded means the flow you are changing is already here to read. If there is no existing flow to change, the task is not bounded. Ask the clarifying questions that matter, present a short design IN CHAT (a few sentences to a few short paragraphs), and STOP. Implementation starts only after your human partner says yes to that design — a bounded task's approval is as hard a gate as an architectural one. No spec file, no implementation plan document. - **Architectural** — new projects, new subsystems, changes that restructure how components fit together or alter interfaces others depend on. Follow the full process: questions, approaches, sectioned design, written spec, then the writing-plans skill. When in doubt between two paths, take the heavier one. The ratchet is one-way: hidden complexity discovered mid-task upgrades the path — stop, say so, and step up. Nothing downgrades mid-task. ## Anti-Pattern: "Too Simple To Need Approval" Every path ends with your human partner approving the required design before implementation. A bounded change may need only two sentences in chat. A new todo-list project is architectural and requires the written spec and planning handoffs. Scale the artifact to the selected path; complete that path's reviews before implementation. ## Red Flags | Thought | Reality | |---------|---------| | "This is too simple to need a design" | Follow the selected path: a bounded change gets a short chat design; an architectural change gets the written spec and planning handoffs. | | "I'll call it bounded and skip the spec" | Reaching for a label to skip work IS the doubt — take the heavier path. | | "It's bounded and the design is obvious — I'll start while they read it" | The gate is the approval, not the design's length. Present, then stop until you hear yes. | | "I understand this kind of app, so it's bounded" | Bounded measures the repo, not your familiarity. A new project has no existing flow — it is architectural. | | "The spike works, so I'll keep the code" | A spike's output is an answer. Keeping the code is a new request — classify it. | | "It grew, but I'm almost done — no need to re-classify" | Hidden complexity upgrades the path mid-task. Stop and say so. | | "They approved the spike, so the follow-up change is approved too" | Each task gets its own classification and its own approval. | ## Checklist Classify first, announce the path, then create a task for each item on your path and complete them in order. **Spike:** 1. **Explore project context** — enough to frame the probe 2. **Present question + probe plan** — 2-3 sentences 3. **Get approval** — a nod is enough 4. **Investigate** — as cheaply as correctness allows 5. **Report findings** — a recommendation; label anything built as throwaway **Bounded:** 1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits 2. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, the ones that matter 3. **Present short design in chat** — approach, files touched, testing 4. **Get approval** — STOP and wait for an explicit yes; presenting the design and starting in the same breath is skipping the gate 5. **Implement** — proceed with the normal development workflow (TDD applies); no plan document **Architectural:** 1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits 2. **Offer the visual companion just-in-time** — NOT upfront. The first time a question would genuinely be clearer shown than described, offer it then (its own message); on approval its browser tab opens for you. If no visual question ever arises, never offer it. See the Visual Companion section below. 3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria 4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation 5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section 6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit 7. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below) 8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding 9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan ## Process Flow ```dot digraph brainstorming { "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" [shape=diamond]; "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" [shape=box]; "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" [shape=box]; "Present short design in chat" [shape=box]; "Human approves?" [shape=diamond]; "Investigate; report recommendation" [shape=doublecircle]; "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [shape=doublecircle]; "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]; "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle]; "Hidden complexity? Upgrade path" [shape=box]; "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" [label="spike"]; "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" [label="bounded"]; "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural" -> "Explore project context" [label="architectural"]; "Present question + probe (2-3 sentences)" -> "Human approves?"; "Ask clarifying questions (bounded)" -> "Present short design in chat"; "Present short design in chat" -> "Human approves?"; "Human approves?" -> "Investigate; report recommendation" [label="spike: yes"]; "Human approves?" -> "Implement via normal workflow (no plan doc)" [label="bounded: yes"]; "Hidden complexity? Upgrade path" -> "Classify: spike / bounded / architectural"; "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?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"]; } ``` **Terminal states are path-bound.** Architectural: the ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans — never frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. Bounded: after approval, implementation proceeds directly through the normal development workflow; no plan document. Spike: the terminal state is a reported recommendation. ## The Process The subsections below serve the bounded and architectural paths (a spike stops at "present the probe, get a nod"). Sections from **Exploring approaches** onward are architectural-path depth — for bounded work, context plus a few questions plus a short in-chat design is the whole 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, but open-ended is fine too - Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions - Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria **Exploring approaches:** - Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs - Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning - Lead with your recommended option and explain why - YAGNI ruthlessly - remove unnecessary features from every approach and design **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 for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much. **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 - the way a good developer improves code they're working in. - Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal. ## After the Design (architectural path) **Documentation:** - Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` - (User preferences for spec location override this default) - Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available - Commit the design document to git **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. 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 start writing out 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:** - Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan - Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step. ## 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 (just-in-time):** Do NOT offer it upfront. Wait until a question would genuinely be clearer shown than told — a real mockup / layout / diagram question, not merely a UI *topic*. The first time that happens, offer it then, as its own message: > "This next part might be easier if I show you — I can put together mockups, diagrams, and comparisons in a browser tab as we go. It's still new and can be token-intensive. Want me to? I'll open it for you." **This offer MUST be its own message.** Only the offer — no clarifying question, summary, or other content. Wait for the user's response. If they accept, start the server with `--open` so their browser opens to the first screen automatically. If they decline, continue text-only and don't offer again unless they raise it. **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, architecture 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`
Original skill: obra/superpowers/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers/blob/8ca22dba9a94f28898bbce59f2537ff4d87c747d/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md License: MIT MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
SKILL.md 본문입니다. 원문에서 참조하는 스크립트·보조 파일은 원본 패키지에 포함되어 있습니다.