Skip to content

docs(skill): bias brainstorm toward minimal solutions and deletion cost #197

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
codeaholicguy merged 1 commit into from
Aug 22, 2026
+11 −6
Merged

docs(skill): bias brainstorm toward minimal solutions and deletion cost #197

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions CHANGELOG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -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.
Expand Down
13 changes: 7 additions & 6 deletions skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -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

Expand All @@ -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.
Loading