Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

brainstorming

Structured idea generation + multi-LLM debate for the product-owner stage. Diverge (generate genuinely different bets), debate (a 4-persona panel on 4 models argues over 2 rounds), converge (synthesize a recommendation). Used by product-owner before architect; available to architect for design-space exploration.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

brainstorming

Idea work has three movements: diverge → debate → converge. Most teams skip the middle one and converge on the first plausible idea. The debate panel is the point of this skill.

1. Diverge — generate genuinely different bets

From a framed problem (who · cost-of-pain · why-now · success metric), produce 3–5 distinct approaches — different bets, not cosmetic variants. Force diversity along at least one axis each:

  • different user (who you serve first)
  • different wedge (the one feature you lead with)
  • different scope (concierge/manual vs full self-serve)
  • different business shape (tool you sell vs outcome you deliver)

For each: the core bet · the smallest version that tests it · the main risk. Reject near-duplicates — if two options share the same bet, drop one and push for a more contrarian alternative.

2. Debate — the idea-debate panel

Four personas, four different models, two rounds. Model diversity matters: different model families fail differently, so they catch different holes.

PersonaStance — argues…ModelInvocation
Visionarythe strongest case FOR — the 10x outcome if it worksclaude-opus-5Task, model: opus
Skepticthe strongest case AGAINST — why it fails / who tried & diedclaude-sonnet-5Task, model: sonnet
User-Advocatethe user's honest reaction — would I pay / switch / care? AND, for any product that messages or collects data from end-recipients, the recipient's consent/opt-in friction (TCPA / opt-out / spam fatigue / who refuses)claude-haiku-4-5Task, model: haiku
Pragmatistcost, time-to-ship, build-vs-buy, unit economicsKimi K2mcp__great_cto_llm_router__ask_kimi

Round 1 — opening positions (blind, parallel)

Spawn the three Task personas in one message (parallel) + call the Kimi router for the Pragmatist. Each gets the framed problem + the diverge options and only its own stance. Prompt template:

You are the {persona} on a product debate panel. Stance: {stance}. Problem: {framing}. Options on the table: {options}. Make the strongest possible {for/against} case. Be specific and concrete — name the mechanism, the comparable, the number. End with: verdict (BUILD / DON'T / PIVOT-to-which-option) + your single biggest worry.

Round 2 — rebuttal (informed)

Feed each persona the other three's Round-1 positions. Ask:

Here are the other panelists' positions: {r1_others}. Rebut the one you most disagree with. Then give your updated verdict and the one condition that would change your mind.

Convergence guard

If all four agree in Round 1, the framing was too soft — re-run with a sharper, explicitly contrarian Skeptic ("assume this is a bad idea; prove it"). Genuine consensus only counts when the Skeptic was given every chance to kill it.

3. Converge — synthesize (the chair decides)

The product-owner (Opus) is the chair, not a vote-counter. Read all eight statements and produce:

  • The decisive consideration — the one argument that actually settles it
  • Strongest FOR and strongest AGAINST (steelmanned, attributed)
  • The call — BUILD / DON'T BUILD / PIVOT, with the reason in one sentence
  • What would flip it — the kill-criteria / the condition to revisit
  • Dissent preserved — if a persona held a strong minority view, record it; don't launder it out. Tomorrow's "why didn't we think of X" lives here.

Feed this straight into the product brief's Debate digest section.

Cost note

The panel is ~$0.30–0.60 per idea (one Opus + one Sonnet + one Haiku + one Kimi call × 2 rounds). That is the cheapest insurance in the pipeline: it runs before any engineering time is spent, at the stage where "no" is free and "yes" is expensive.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

great_cto's own committed aesthetic — the instrument panel. Dark five-step surface ladder, exactly one accent, two faces divided by MEANING (Geist speaks, Geist Mono is machine-truth), tabular numerals, and a dash that is not a nought. Twelve checkable rules measured from packages/board and greatcto.systems, not designed for this file. Use when building or extending any great_cto surface — the board, the site, a report, a share page.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

avelikiy/great_cto105Updated Oct 22, 2026

Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that great_cto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

avelikiy/great_cto105Updated Oct 22, 2026

Analyze images, websites, and Figma files to extract their design and generate a `design.md` with token system, component inventory, and reconstruction notes. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand, document, replicate, or audit the design of something visual: a screenshot, a URL, a Figma link, a Pinterest reference, a mockup, a competitor's site, a component, a dashboard, a landing page. Also when they ask 'extract the design system from X', 'document the style of Y', 'analyze this visually', 'convert this image into tokens', 'help me replicate this design', 'what palette does this site use', 'how is this built'. Also for single elements: 'copy this navbar', 'recreate this illustration', 'give me a prompt to regenerate this graphic' — element mode outputs a focused element.md, with token-grounded image-model prompts when the element is visual art. If the user brings any visual source and wants to understand it at a design level — this skill should activate.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

avelikiy/great_cto105Updated Oct 22, 2026

Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md), mandatory sections, severity scale, verdict format, the workflow scaffold (when-invoked, Step-0 read-inputs, HANDOFF), and the "domain heuristic vs generic check" boundary. Eliminates duplication across the ~30 reviewer prompts.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

avelikiy/great_cto105Updated Oct 22, 2026

Run the great_cto controlled Codex lifecycle with controller-owned writes, verifier evidence, human gates and optional artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

avelikiy/great_cto105Updated Oct 22, 2026

How to write — and how to use — a skill that IS one aesthetic rather than a catalogue of them. A catalogue lets an agent pick, and it picks the modal option; a committed aesthetic makes it execute one thing precisely, against rules you can check. Use when a design keeps coming out competent and forgettable, when starting a new brand surface with no reference, or when authoring a house style you want executed the same way twice.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

avelikiy/great_cto105Updated Oct 22, 2026

See all skills by avelikiy

Report a problem with this skill