From 35695f2bc1db1e8a25abff4e3f6d90ac606629ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hoang Nguyen Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 14:58:46 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] docs(skill): bias brainstorm toward minimal solutions and deletion cost --- CHANGELOG.md | 4 ++++ skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md | 13 +++++++------ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md index 5b1c6ffa..584864b0 100644 --- a/CHANGELOG.md +++ b/CHANGELOG.md @@ -5,6 +5,10 @@ All notable changes to this project will be documented in this file. The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/), and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html). +## [Unreleased] + +- Bias the brainstorm skill toward minimal solutions: baseline-first divergence, speculative-generality and verified-claim checks, and deletion cost in comparisons. + ## [0.54.0] - 2026-08-21 - [8284e76](https://github.com/codeaholicguy/ai-devkit/pull/194) Indexed cached registry skills. diff --git a/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md b/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md index 3020f4e0..a57327c5 100644 --- a/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md @@ -9,11 +9,12 @@ Run a compact diverge-to-converge loop. ## Workflow -1. Frame: restate the goal, constraints, audience, success criteria, and assumptions. -2. Diverge: generate distinct options across practical, high-leverage, and unusual angles. -3. Challenge: identify weak assumptions, obvious failure modes, tradeoffs, and ideas to reject. -4. Compare: group related ideas and evaluate only on relevant criteria such as impact, effort, risk, novelty, confidence, or time-to-test. -5. Converge: recommend the strongest 3 options with brief rationale and a concrete next step, experiment, outline, or decision checkpoint. +1. Frame: goal, constraints, audience, success criteria, assumptions. +2. Baseline: state the simplest honest solution first. Every option must beat it; the baseline stays a candidate. +3. Diverge: distinct options across practical, high-leverage, and unusual angles. +4. Challenge: weak assumptions, failure modes, tradeoffs, rejections. Always: reject speculative generality (each abstraction, layer, flag, and data copy needs a current caller) and verify load-bearing "needed" claims in the consuming code, not doc assertions. +5. Compare: only relevant criteria, plus deletion cost (how easily the option can be removed later). Ties go to the smaller option. +6. Converge: strongest 3 picks with rationale and a next step. Self-review first: for each new constant, object, layer, and flag ask "why do we need this?" Cut answers that are only messaging or future-proofing. ## Formats @@ -25,4 +26,4 @@ Use Quick by default. Use Deep only for ambiguous or high-stakes decisions. Ask - Technical: approaches, tradeoffs, risks, validation. - Content: angles, hooks, audiences, outlines. -Avoid filler, near-duplicates, generic best practices, and premature recommendations. If asked for more ideas, explore a new axis before listing variants. +Avoid filler, near-duplicates, generic best practices, premature recommendations, and scope without a current caller. If asked for more ideas, explore a new axis before listing variants.