brainstorm

/brainstorm — Clarify Goals Before Planning

Purpose: Separate WHAT from HOW. Explore the problem space before committing to a solution.

Loop position

Upstream of move 1 (shape intent as BDD) of the operating loop. Consumes a free-text goal; produces Given/When/Then-shaped acceptance examples that /discovery can fold into a BDD intent issue. The Capture step (phase 4 below) is not complete until at least one happy path and one critical edge are written as testable Gherkin — "it should work" is not a captured example.

Two modes

/brainstorm runs in one of two modes. They are complementary, not exclusive — a session may start in ideation mode, pick one idea, and hand it to goal-clarification for HOW-exploration.

The full mode-selection table lives in references/ideation-mode.md.

Four phases (goal-clarification mode):

1. Assess clarity — Is the goal specific enough?
2. Understand idea — What problem, who benefits, what exists?
3. Explore approaches — Generate options, compare tradeoffs, adversarial critique
4. Capture design — Write structured output for /plan

---

Quick Start

/brainstorm "add user authentication"     # full 4-phase process
/brainstorm                                # prompts for goal

---

Execution Steps

Phase 1: Assess Clarity

If the user provided a goal string, evaluate it. Otherwise prompt for one.

Use AskUserQuestion with options to gauge clarity:

• clear — Goal is specific and actionable (e.g., "add JWT auth to the API")
• vague — Goal exists but needs narrowing (e.g., "improve security")
• exploring — No firm goal yet, just a direction (e.g., "something with auth")

If vague or exploring, ask follow-up questions to sharpen the goal before proceeding. Do NOT move to Phase 2 until you have a concrete problem statement (one sentence, testable).

Phase 2: Understand the Idea

Answer these questions (use codebase exploration as needed):

1. What problem does this solve? — State the pain point in concrete terms.
2. Who benefits? — End users, developers, operators, CI pipeline?
3. What exists today? — Current state, prior art in the codebase, adjacent systems.
4. What constraints matter? — Performance, compatibility, security, timeline.

Summarize findings before moving on. If anything is unclear, ask the user.

Phase 3: Explore Approaches

Generate 2-3 distinct approaches. For each:

• Name — Short label (e.g., "JWT middleware", "OAuth proxy", "Session cookies")
• How it works — 2-3 sentences
• Pros — What it gets right
• Cons — What it gets wrong or defers
• Effort — Rough scope (small / medium / large)

Phase 3b: Adversarial Critique

Before asking the user to choose, stress-test each approach:

For each approach, answer these red team questions (read references/red-team-checklist.md):

1. What breaks first? — Under load, edge cases, or adversarial input
2. What's the hidden cost? — Maintenance burden, technical debt, learning curve
3. What assumption is wrong? — The unstated belief that makes this approach seem good
4. Who disagrees? — What would a senior engineer with the opposite preference say?

Mark any approach that fails 2+ red team questions as HIGH RISK in the comparison.

If all approaches fail 2+ questions, generate a 4th "hybrid" approach addressing the weaknesses.

Present the comparison and use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick an approach or request a hybrid.

Phase 4: Capture Design

Generate a date slug: YYYY-MM-DD-<goal-slug> (lowercase, hyphens, no spaces).

Write the output file to .agents/brainstorm/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md:

---
id: brainstorm-YYYY-MM-DD-<goal-slug>
type: brainstorm
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---
# Brainstorm: <Goal>
## Problem Statement
## Approaches Considered
## Selected Approach
## Open Questions
## Next Step: /plan

All five sections must be populated. The "Next Step" section should contain a concrete /plan invocation suggestion with the selected approach as context.

Create the .agents/brainstorm/ directory if it does not exist.

---

Ideation Mode (open-ended generate-winnow)

Additive to the four-phase flow above — it does not replace it. Ideation mode is for "improve the project"-style goals where the WHAT is unknown and you must generate a portfolio and select, rather than clarify ONE known goal. Full detail: references/ideation-mode.md.

Trigger: the exploring clarity path (Phase 1) when no single goal emerges after follow-up, OR an explicit --ideate flag, OR an open-ended goal string ("improve the project", "what should we build next", "make X more robust").

The methodology is generate → winnow → expand → operationalize → refine. Steps 1-3 belong to /brainstorm; steps 4-5 are handed to /discovery on its open-ended path (see references/bead-operationalization.md).

Step 1 — Ground in reality

Read project state so ideas align and don't duplicate work:

cat AGENTS.md                      # or CLAUDE.md — rules, constraints, non-goals
bd list --json                     # open work — don't duplicate
bd list --status closed --json     # closed work — don't re-propose cut ideas
bd ready --json                    # what is actionable now

Step 2 — Generate 30, winnow to 5 (ranked, with rationale)

Generate 30 candidate improvements (criteria = the rubric dimensions: robust, reliable, performant, intuitive, user-friendly, ergonomic, useful, compelling, while staying obviously accretive and pragmatic). Think each one through: how it works, how users perceive it, how we implement it. Then winnow ruthlessly to the VERY best 5, presented ranked best-to-worst with full rationale and rubric scores. Apply the winnowing rounds and scoring from references/idea-rubric.md, and stress-test survivors with references/red-team-checklist.md. Do NOT stop at the first 5 you think of — generate the full 30 first.

Step 3 — Expand with the next 10 (→ 15)

Generate the next best 10 (each with rationale) for a ranked portfolio of 15 — #6-15 are often complementary to the top 5.

Steps 4-5 — Operationalize + refine (handed to /discovery)

Carry the ranked 15 (with how/perceive/implement notes + rubric scores + red-team findings) forward. /discovery operationalizes them into self-documenting bd beads (deps + explicit test tasks) and refines 4-5x in plan space. See references/bead-operationalization.md.

Output

Standalone (/brainstorm --ideate): write the ranked portfolio to .agents/brainstorm/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-ideation.md (template in references/ideation-mode.md). Invoked by /discovery: return the ranked portfolio inline for the operationalize step.

Tracking is bd, never br/bv — this is AgentOps.

---

Termination

Phase 4 output written = done. No further phases, no loops.

Validation

After writing the output file, verify:

1. File exists at the expected path
2. All 5 sections (Problem Statement, Approaches Considered, Selected Approach, Open Questions, Next Step: /plan) are present and non-empty

Report the file path to the user.

---

Examples

Example 1: Specific goal

User: /brainstorm "add rate limiting to the API"

Phase 1: Goal is clear — add rate limiting to the API.
Phase 2: Problem is uncontrolled request volume causing timeouts.
         Benefits operators and end users. No rate limiting exists today.
Phase 3: Three approaches — token bucket middleware, API gateway,
         per-route decorators. User picks token bucket.
Phase 4: Writes .agents/brainstorm/2026-02-17-rate-limiting.md

Example 2: Vague goal

User: /brainstorm "improve performance"

Phase 1: Goal is vague. Asks: "Which part? API response times,
         build speed, database queries, or something else?"
         User says: "API response times on the search endpoint."
Phase 2: Investigates search endpoint, finds N+1 queries.
Phase 3: Approaches — query optimization, caching layer, pagination.
Phase 4: Writes .agents/brainstorm/2026-02-17-search-performance.md

---

Troubleshooting

---

See Also

• skills/plan/SKILL.md — Decompose the selected approach into actionable issues

Reference Documents

• references/brainstorm.feature — Executable spec: WHAT-not-HOW 4-phase clarification, options+tradeoffs, capture Gherkin (happy + edge) for /plan (soc-qk4b)

• references/red-team-checklist.md — Adversarial critique template for Phase 3b

• references/ideation-mode.md — Open-ended generate-winnow methodology: mode-selection table, generate-30 → winnow-5 → expand-15, output template (ag-yw0)

• references/idea-rubric.md — Ten-dimension evaluation rubric (robust/reliable/performant/intuitive/user-friendly/ergonomic/useful/compelling/accretive/pragmatic) + winnowing rounds (ag-yw0)

• references/bead-operationalization.md — Operationalize the ranked portfolio into self-documenting bd beads (deps + test tasks) and refine 4-5x in plan space (ag-yw0)