🇺🇸English
When this skill is activated, always start your first response with the brain emoji.
Super Brainstorm
Activation Banner
At the very start of every super-brainstorm invocation , before any other output, display this ASCII art banner:
███████╗██╗ ██╗██████╗ ███████╗██████╗
██╔════╝██║ ██║██╔══██╗██╔════╝██╔══██╗
███████╗██║ ██║██████╔╝█████╗ ██████╔╝
╚════██║██║ ██║██╔═══╝ ██╔══╝ ██╔══██╗
███████║╚██████╔╝██║ ███████╗██║ ██║
╚══════╝ ╚═════╝ ╚═╝ ╚══════╝╚═╝ ╚═╝
██████╗ ██████╗ █████╗ ██╗███╗ ██╗███████╗████████╗ ██████╗ ██████╗ ███╗ ███╗
██╔══██╗██╔══██╗██╔══██╗██║████╗ ██║██╔════╝╚══██╔══╝██╔═══██╗██╔══██╗████╗ ████║
██████╔╝██████╔╝███████║██║██╔██╗ ██║███████╗ ██║ ██║ ██║██████╔╝██╔████╔██║
██╔══██╗██╔══██╗██╔══██║██║██║╚██╗██║╚════██║ ██║ ██║ ██║██╔══██╗██║╚██╔╝██║
██████╔╝██║ ██║██║ ██║██║██║ ╚████║███████║ ██║ ╚██████╔╝██║ ██║██║ ╚═╝ ██║
╚═════╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═╝╚═╝ ╚═══╝╚══════╝ ╚═╝ ╚═════╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═╝ ╚═╝
Follow the banner immediately with: Entering plan mode - ultrathink enabled
A relentless, ultrathink-powered design interview that turns vague ideas into bulletproof specs. This is not a casual brainstorm - it is a structured interrogation of every assumption, every dependency, and every design branch until the AI and user reach a shared understanding that a staff engineer would approve.
When to use this skill
Trigger this skill when the user:
- Requests a new feature, component, or functionality that needs design before implementation
- Asks to build something and the scope or approach is not yet clear
- Wants to brainstorm or explore options for a design decision
- Is starting a greenfield project and needs to define architecture
- Needs to refactor or redesign an existing system
- Says "let's think through this" or "help me plan this"
- Wants to decompose a complex request into a validated spec before coding
Do NOT trigger this skill for:
- Quick bug fixes or typo corrections where the solution is obvious
- Pure code review tasks with no design decisions
- Tasks where the user explicitly says "just do it" and the scope is trivially clear
Hard Gates
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 complete these steps in order:
- Enter plan mode
- Deep context scan - read docs/, README.md, CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, recent commits, project structure
- Codebase-first exploration - before every question, check if the codebase already answers it
- Scope assessment - if the request spans multiple independent subsystems, decompose first
- Relentless interview - one question at a time, strictly linear, dependency-resolved, ultrathink every decision
- Approach proposal - only when there's a genuine fork; mark one (Recommended) with rationale
- Design presentation - section by section, user approval per section
- Write spec - save to
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
- Spec review loop - dispatch reviewer subagent, fix issues, max 3 iterations
- User reviews spec - gate before proceeding
- Flexible exit - user chooses next step (writing-plans, super-human, direct implementation, etc.)
Process Flow
digraph super_brainstorm {
rankdir=TB;
node [shape=box];
"Enter plan mode" -> "Deep context scan";
"Deep context scan" -> "Scope assessment";
"Scope assessment" -> "Decompose into sub-projects" [label="too large"];
"Scope assessment" -> "Relentless interview" [label="right-sized"];
"Decompose into sub-projects" -> "Relentless interview" [label="first sub-project"];
"Relentless interview" -> "Genuine fork?" [shape=diamond];
"Genuine fork?" -> "Propose approaches\n(mark Recommended)" [label="yes"];
"Genuine fork?" -> "Next question or\ndesign presentation" [label="no, obvious answer"];
"Propose approaches\n(mark Recommended)" -> "Next question or\ndesign presentation";
"Next question or\ndesign presentation" -> "Relentless interview" [label="more branches"];
"Next question or\ndesign presentation" -> "Present design sections" [label="tree resolved"];
"Present design sections" -> "User approves section?" [shape=diamond];
"User approves section?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
"User approves section?" -> "Write spec to docs/plans/" [label="yes, all sections"];
"Write spec to docs/plans/" -> "Spec review loop\n(subagent, max 3)";
"Spec review loop\n(subagent, max 3)" -> "User reviews spec";
"User reviews spec" -> "Write spec to docs/plans/" [label="changes requested"];
"User reviews spec" -> "User chooses next step" [label="approved"];
}
Phase 1: Deep Context Scan
Before asking the user a single question, build comprehensive project awareness.
Mandatory reads (if they exist):
docs/ directory - read README.md first, then scan all filesREADME.md at project rootCLAUDE.md / .claude/ configurationCONTRIBUTING.mddocs/plans/ - existing design docs that might overlap- Recent git commits (last 10-20)
- Package manifests (
package.json, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml, etc.)
- Project structure overview (top-level directories)
What you're looking for:
- Existing patterns, conventions, and architectural decisions
- Tech stack and dependencies
- Testing patterns and CI setup
- Overlapping or related design docs
- Code style and organizational conventions
Output to the user: A brief summary of what you found, highlighting anything relevant to the task at hand. Do NOT dump a file listing - synthesize what matters.
Phase 2: Codebase-First Intelligence
Before asking ANY question, check if the codebase already answers it.
This is the core differentiator. The AI must:
- Identify what it needs to know to make the next design decision
- Search the codebase for the answer (grep, glob, read relevant files)
- Only ask the user if the code genuinely cannot answer the question
Examples:
- "What database are you using?" - DON'T ASK. Check package.json, config files, existing code.
- "How do you handle authentication?" - DON'T ASK. Search for auth middleware, JWT usage, session handling.
- "What testing framework?" - DON'T ASK. Check test files, config, package.json.
- "What's the visual style you want?" - ASK. Code can't answer aesthetic preferences.
- "Should this be real-time or batch?" - ASK. This is a product decision the codebase can't resolve.
When you DO find the answer in the codebase, tell the user what you found:
"I see you're using Prisma with PostgreSQL (from prisma/schema.prisma). I'll design around that."
This builds confidence and saves the user from answering questions they already answered in code.
Phase 3: Scope Assessment
Before diving into 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
- Help decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built?
- Each sub-project gets its own brainstorm -> spec -> plan -> implementation cycle
- Brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow
If the request is appropriately scoped , proceed to the interview.
Phase 4: Relentless Interview
This is the heart of the skill. Walk down every branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one by one.
Rules:
- Use the
AskUserQuestion tool for every question - this is a built-in Claude Code tool that pauses execution and waits for the user's response. Use it for every interview question, every section approval, and every decision point. Never just print a question in your output - always use the tool so the conversation properly blocks until the user responds.
- One question at a time - never overwhelm with multiple questions
- Ultrathink before every question - reason deeply about what you need to know next, what depends on what, and whether the codebase can answer it
- Strictly linear - if decision B depends on decision A, never ask about B until A is locked
- Prefer multiple choice when possible - easier to answer. Include your recommendation marked as (Recommended) with a clear rationale
- Never fake options - only propose multiple approaches when there's a genuine fork in the road. If the codebase and interview clearly point to one right answer, present it with reasoning for why alternatives were dismissed
- Codebase check before every question - search the code first, only ask what code can't tell you
- Keep going until every decision node is resolved - don't shortcut, don't assume, don't hand-wave. If a branch of the design tree hasn't been explored, explore it.
What to interview about:
- Purpose and success criteria
- User/consumer personas
- Data model and relationships
- Component boundaries and interfaces
- State management and data flow
- Error handling and edge cases
- Performance requirements and constraints
- Security considerations
- Testing strategy
- Migration path (if modifying existing systems)
- Backwards compatibility concerns
Design tree traversal: Think of the design as a tree of decisions. Each decision may open new branches. Walk the tree depth-first, resolving each branch fully before moving to siblings.
Feature X
- Who is this for? (resolve)
- What's the core interaction? (resolve)
- How does data flow? (resolve)
- What are the edge cases? (resolve)
- What are the error states? (resolve)
- What's the secondary interaction? (resolve)
- How does this integrate with existing system? (resolve)
Phase 5: Approach Proposals
Only propose multiple approaches when there is a genuine design fork.
When the answer is obvious: Present the single approach with reasoning. Briefly mention why you dismissed alternatives:
"Given your existing Express + Prisma stack and the read-heavy access pattern, a new Prisma model with a cached read path is the clear approach. A separate microservice would add complexity without benefit at this scale, and a raw SQL approach would lose Prisma's type safety."
When there's a genuine fork: Present each option with:
- What it is (1-2 sentences)
- Pros and cons
- When you'd pick it
- Mark one as (Recommended) with clear rationale
Phase 6: Design Presentation
Once the design tree is fully resolved, present the design section by section.
Rules:
- 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 approach
- Be ready to go back and revise if something doesn't fit
- Reference existing codebase patterns you're building on
Design for isolation and clarity:
- Break the system into smaller units with one clear purpose each
- Well-defined interfaces between units
- Each unit should be understandable and testable independently
- For each unit: what does it do, how do you use it, what does it depend on?
Working in existing codebases:
- Follow existing patterns. Don't fight the codebase.
- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries), 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.
Phase 7: Write Spec
After user approves the full design:
- Write to
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
- Clear, concise prose. No fluff.
- Sections should mirror what was discussed and approved
- Include: summary, architecture, components, data model, interfaces, error handling, testing strategy, migration path (if applicable)
Phase 8: Spec Review Loop
After writing the spec, dispatch a reviewer subagent:
Agent tool (general-purpose):
description: "Review spec document"
prompt: |
You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready
for implementation planning.
Spec to review: [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
| Category | What to Look For |
|------------- |---------------------------------------------------------------|
| Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
| Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
| Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause building the wrong thing|
| Scope | Focused enough for a single plan |
| YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation.
Approve unless there are serious gaps.
Output format:
## Spec Review
**Status:** Approved | Issues Found
**Issues (if any):**
- [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters]
**Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
- [suggestions]
- If issues found: fix them, re-dispatch, repeat
- Max 3 iterations. If still failing, surface to the user for guidance.
Phase 9: User Reviews Spec
After the review loop passes:
"Spec written to <path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we proceed."
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.
Phase 10: Flexible Exit
Once the spec is approved, present the user with options:
"Spec is approved. What would you like to do next?"
- A) Writing plans - create a detailed implementation plan (invoke writing-plans skill)
- B) Superhuman - full AI-native SDLC with task decomposition and parallel execution (invoke super-human skill)
- C) Direct implementation - start building right away
- D) Something else - your call
Let the user decide the next step. Do not auto-invoke any skill.
Key Principles
- Ultrathink everything - deep reasoning before every decision, no lazy shortcuts
- Codebase before questions - respect the user's time, only ask genuine unknowns
- One question at a time via
AskUserQuestion tool - never overwhelm, always use the built-in tool to ask
- Strictly linear - resolve dependencies before moving forward
- Honest options - real forks get multiple approaches, obvious answers get presented directly
- Always mark (Recommended) - every set of options includes a clear recommendation with rationale
- YAGNI ruthlessly - remove unnecessary features from all designs
- Incremental validation - present design section by section, get approval before moving on
- Plan mode always - this skill operates entirely in plan mode
Gotchas
-
AskUserQuestion tool not available in all environments - The AskUserQuestion tool is a Claude Code-specific built-in. In other environments (Gemini CLI, OpenAI Codex), it may not exist. Fall back to printing the question as a clearly demarcated output block and waiting for user response, but track that you are waiting for an answer before proceeding.
-
Deep context scan can consume the entire context window - Reading every file in docs/ and every recent commit in a large codebase can exhaust the context window before the first question is asked. Be selective: read README, CLAUDE.md, and recent commits first; only go deeper on files directly relevant to the task.
-
Spec saved todocs/plans/ in the wrong repo - If the skill is invoked in a monorepo or a workspace with multiple docs/ directories, saving the spec to the wrong subdirectory means it will never be found during future DISCOVER phases. Confirm the target docs/plans/ path with the user before writing.
-
Reviewer subagent approves incomplete specs - The reviewer subagent is prompted to "approve unless there are serious gaps," which means minor incompleteness often passes. Do not treat reviewer approval as a substitute for user approval. The user gate in Phase 9 is mandatory regardless of the reviewer's verdict.
Anti-Patterns and Common Mistakes
| Anti-Pattern | Better Approach |
|---|
| Asking questions the codebase can answer | Search code first - check configs, existing patterns, test files before every question |
| Batching multiple questions in one message | One question at a time, always. Break complex topics into sequential questions |
| Printing questions as plain text output | Always use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask - it blocks until the user responds |
| Skipping docs/ and README before starting | Always read all available documentation before the first question |
| Proposing fake alternatives when the answer is obvious | Present the single right answer with rationale; only show options at genuine forks |
| Accepting vague answers without follow-up | Dig deeper - "what do you mean by that?" is always valid |
| Asking about implementation before purpose | Always resolve "why" and "what" before "how" |
| Not exploring error/edge case branches | Every design tree has an error handling branch - walk it |
| Jumping to code before spec approval | Hard gate: no code, no scaffolding, no implementation until spec is approved |
References
For detailed guidance on specific aspects, load these reference files:
references/interview-playbook.md - Design tree traversal, question banks by project type, codebase-first intelligence patterns, example interview sessionsreferences/spec-writing.md - Spec document template, section scaling rules, writing style guide, decision log format, spec review checklist, example specreferences/approach-analysis.md - When to propose multiple approaches, approach proposal format, trade-off dimensions, project decomposition guide, common decision trees
Only load a references file if the current phase requires it - they are long and will consume context.
Companion check
On first activation of this skill in a conversation: check which companion skills are installed by running ls ~/.claude/skills/ ~/.agent/skills/ ~/.agents/skills/ .claude/skills/ .agent/skills/ .agents/skills/ 2>/dev/null. Compare the results against the recommended_skills field in this file's frontmatter. For any that are missing, mention them once and offer to install:
npx skills add AbsolutelySkilled/AbsolutelySkilled --skill <name>
Skip entirely if recommended_skills is empty or all companions are already installed.
Weekly Installs
47
Repository
absolutelyskill…yskilled
GitHub Stars
73
First Seen
7 days ago
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass
Installed on
cursor40
opencode35
gemini-cli35
claude-code35
github-copilot35
codex35
