AgentSkillsCN

quick-brainstorm

针对需要在实施前进一步明确的 Bug 修复、小型功能开发或代码优化,开展轻量级头脑风暴。通过深入提问,确保输出结果精准无误。适用于用户提出修复 Bug、新增小功能、重构代码,或进行针对性优化时使用——且当需求范围足够小,无需召开完整的头脑风暴会议时。切勿用于大型架构决策或全新项目开发。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: quick-brainstorm
description: >
  Lightweight brainstorming for bug fixes, small features, or code improvements
  that need clarification before implementation. Triggers deep questioning to
  ensure accurate output. Use when user asks to fix a bug, add a small feature,
  refactor code, or make targeted improvements — and the scope is small enough
  that a full brainstorm session is unnecessary. Do NOT use for large-scale
  architecture decisions or greenfield projects.

Quick Brainstorm

MANDATORY: Do NOT call any file-edit, file-create, or code-generation tools until Phase 1 Q&A self-check has passed or Fast Track criteria are met. Reading files for context is allowed. Violation = immediate stop and return to Q&A.

Lightweight brainstorming → deep Q&A → design confirmation → Plan Mode → execution.

Core principle: Only ask deep, non-obvious questions. Goal is accurate output, not question count.

Optional Parameters

  • --doc — After design confirmation, write design doc to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md using create_file.
  • --worktree — Before starting, create isolated branch via git worktree add ../quick-brainstorm-<topic> -b quick-brainstorm/<topic> and work there.
  • --plan-file — Write implementation plan to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-plan.md instead of only presenting in chat.

Process

code
Task → Understand context (read files/code/commits)
     → Q&A (one question at a time, until self-check passes)
     → Multiple approaches? → Compare options with recommendation
     → Present design in sections, confirm each
     → Enter Plan Mode: create implementation plan, wait for approval
     → Execute after user approval

Fast Track

May skip Q&A only if ALL three conditions are true:

  1. The change is mechanical (single-line fix, typo, rename, or user gave exact code to write)
  2. Zero design decisions or trade-offs involved
  3. User's instruction leaves no room for interpretation

If any condition fails → go to Phase 1. When in doubt, ask one question to verify.

Phase 1: Q&A

Rules:

  • One question at a time, prefer multiple choice
  • Skip anything Claude can infer from code/context
  • Keep asking until self-check passes — not based on a minimum question count

Self-check before ending Q&A:

  • Core functionality approach is clear
  • Edge cases and error handling covered
  • No missing related requirements
  • User has confirmed or implicitly indicated discussion is sufficient (e.g., answered last question with no new concerns)

Phase 2: Compare Options

When: 2+ reasonable approaches exist. Skip when: One clearly optimal solution.

Present each option with pros/cons and a recommendation with reasoning. Keep brief.

Phase 3: Present Design

Present in sections, confirm each before continuing. Trim sections that don't apply.

  1. Change overview — What and why
  2. Technical approach — Implementation details, files involved
  3. Data/API/UI changes — If any
  4. Edge cases — Key cases only
  5. Implementation steps — Brief execution order

Phase 4: Plan Mode

After design confirmation, switch to planning-only mode (no code output yet):

  1. Create implementation plan — List each step: files to change, what to change, expected outcome. If the environment supports a built-in plan mode (e.g. plan command, Plan Mode toggle, or writing-plans skill), use that; otherwise present the plan as a structured list in chat.
  2. Wait for explicit user approval before writing any code.
  3. During execution, pause and ask if encountering scenarios not covered in the plan.

Guardrails

STOP and return to the correct phase if any of these occur:

  • Calling edit/create tools before Q&A self-check passed (unless Fast Track criteria met)
  • User says "no" but continuing with original approach
  • Entering Plan Mode without design confirmation
  • Executing without Plan Mode approval
  • Judging a task as "obvious" without verifying all three Fast Track conditions