plastic-brainstorming - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: plastic-brainstorming description: "Explore intent requirements and design before implementation. Produces spec.md in the active intent directory."

Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs

Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.

Announce: "I'm using the brainstorming skill to explore the design for intent {id} — {name}."

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.

Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.

Active Intent Gate

Before proceeding, resolve the active intent:

Detect store: Read ~/.plastic/projects.yml, match CWD against registered project paths. If match → project store at ~/.plastic/projects/{slug}/store/. If no match → global store at ~/.plastic/store/.
Find active intent: Read INDEX.md from the detected store. Look under ## Active. If exactly one → use it. If multiple → ask which. If none → refuse: "No active intent. Create one first with /plastic-creating-intent"
Resolve intent directory: {store}/store/{id}--{slug}/

All artifacts go to the intent directory. Never write to external paths.

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:

Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits, read active intent
Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
Write spec — save to {intent_dir}/spec.md and commit to store repo
Spec self-review — placeholder scan, consistency, scope, ambiguity
User reviews written spec — ask user to review before proceeding
Transition to planning — invoke plastic-writing-plans

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 spec" [shape=box];
    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
    "User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
    "Invoke plastic-writing-plans" [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 spec" [label="yes"];
    "Write spec" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
    "User reviews spec?" -> "Write spec" [label="changes requested"];
    "User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke plastic-writing-plans" [label="approved"];
}

The terminal state is invoking plastic-writing-plans. Do NOT invoke any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is plastic-writing-plans.

The Process

Understanding the idea:

QMD-first (when available): before scanning the store with grep/Read for prior decisions, specs, or outcomes, run ruby ~/.plastic/scripts/qmd-sync search "<terms>" to surface candidate, prior, or related intents, then open the authoritative intent file for any hit you act on. The command is a no-op when QMD is absent, so fall back to the existing INDEX.md / file scan.
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

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 {intent_dir}/spec.md using the ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/spec.md form
Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available

Commit to the store repo:

cd {store_root} && git add . && git commit -m "docs: spec for intent {id} — {name}"

Spec Self-Review: After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:

Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
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 {intent_dir}/spec.md. 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 plastic-writing-plans to create the implementation plan
Do NOT invoke any other skill. plastic-writing-plans is the next step.

Key Principles

One question at a time - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
Multiple choice preferred - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
Explore alternatives - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
Incremental validation - Present design, get approval before moving on
Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense