brainstorming — X∞ Compliance Layer

1. IDENTITY

Skill milik user: brainstorming. Mengikuti Skill Architecture Standard X∞ (wajib).

2. PURPOSE

Mengubah ide mentah menjadi desain dan spesifikasi yang terbentuk penuh melalui dialog kolaboratif alami—bukan langsung ke kode. Memastikan setiap proyek (termasuk yang sederhana) punya desain yang disepakati sebelum implementasi, sehingga asumsi tak teruji tidak membuang kerja.

3. METADATA

• name: brainstorming
• version: 1.0.0
• standard: Skill Architecture Standard X∞ (21-node)
• scope: collaborative design / ideation sebelum implementasi
• depends_on: writing-plans (langkah terminal setelah desain disetujui)

4. TRIGGER ENGINE

Aktif ketika user meminta hal yang cocok dengan deskripsi di atas. Negative trigger: di luar scope deskripsi.

5. CONTEXT ENGINE

Baca OS/ARCH/runtime sebelum bertindak. Termux Android ARM64 ≠ Ubuntu x86_64.

6. DECISION POLICY

IF uncertainty → VERIFY IF high risk → ASK/STOP IF tool unavailable → ALTERNATIVE IF action fails → RECOVER

7. REASONING POLICY

Evidence-first. Bedakan FAKTA vs HIPOTESIS. Confidence: CONFIRMED/LIKELY/POSSIBLE/UNKNOWN.

8. EXECUTION POLICY

Ambil tindakan relevan, lalu VERIFY. Jangan klaim sukses sebelum diverifikasi.

9. TOOL POLICY

Pilih tool berdasar kebutuhan+konteks. Jangan asal panggil semua tool.

10. MEMORY POLICY

Ingat hal relevan; abaikan noise. Retrieve saat dibutuhkan, update bila berubah.

11. VERIFICATION ENGINE

ACTION → VERIFY → SUCCESS? Jika tidak: DIAGNOSE → RETRY/CHANGE STRATEGY.

12. ERROR RECOVERY

transient→retry; timeout→backoff; auth→credential check; dependency→diagnosis; unknown→investigate.

13. SECURITY GUARDRAILS

NEVER log secret. REDACT API KEY/TOKEN/PASSWORD/SECRET sebelum simpan. PII: MINIMIZE→REDACT→HASH.

14. EVALUATION

Self-eval: capai goal? terverifikasi? ada asumsi? ada gagal? Kirim ke Agent Evaluation Engine.

15. OBSERVABILITY

Emit: START/PROGRESS/TOOL CALL/ERROR/RETRY/SUCCESS/FAILURE + TRACE_ID (tanpa secret).

16. PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION

FULL→OPTIMIZED→LOW RESOURCE mode bila terbatas. Prioritas: TASK>SAFETY>RELIABILITY.

17. SELF-IMPROVEMENT

USE→OBSERVE→EVALUATE→FIND WEAKNESS→IMPROVE→TEST→NEW VERSION (via evaluasi+regresi).

18. VERSIONING

Semver. Perubahan struktur = MAJOR. CHANGELOG wajib. CHANGELOG

• 1.0.0 — Rilis awal lapisan X∞: frontmatter & node IDENTITY/PURPOSE/METADATA diperbaiki (description rusak diganti deskripsi trigger nyata; node PURPOSE/METADATA diisi, bukan stub), metadata.openclaw diisi versi 1.0.0 seragam dengan _meta.json.

19. COMPATIBILITY

Tahu OS/ARCH/RUNTIME/versi/tool/API tersedia.

20. KNOWLEDGE SOURCES

Trust hierarchy: OFFICIAL>PRIMARY>REPUTABLE>COMMUNITY>UNKNOWN. Tandai VERIFIED/LIKELY/UNCERTAIN/OUTDATED/CONFLICTING.

21. EXIT CONDITIONS

Berhenti pada: SUCCESS/FAILURE/BLOCKED/NEED USER/NEED CREDENTIAL/NEED TOOL/NEED VERIFICATION.

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.

When to Use

digraph when_to_use {
    "New feature?" [shape=diamond];
    "Building component?" [shape=diamond];
    "Adding functionality?" [shape=diamond];
    "Modifying behavior?" [shape=diamond];
    "brainstorming" [shape=box];
    "Skip brainstorming" [shape=box];

    "New feature?" -> "brainstorming" [label="yes"];
    "New feature?" -> "Building component?" [label="no"];
    "Building component?" -> "brainstorming" [label="yes"];
    "Building component?" -> "Adding functionality?" [label="no"];
    "Adding functionality?" -> "brainstorming" [label="yes"];
    "Adding functionality?" -> "Modifying behavior?" [label="no"];
    "Modifying behavior?" -> "brainstorming" [label="yes"];
    "Modifying behavior?" -> "Skip brainstorming" [label="no"];
}

Use when:

• Creating new features
• Building components
• Adding functionality
• Modifying behavior
• Any creative work

Don't use when:

• Simple bug fix (use systematic-debugging)
• Following existing patterns exactly
• Trivial configuration change

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:

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

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];
    "Invoke writing-plans skill" [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?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"];
}

The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.

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, 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

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

Quick Reference