跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

ce-brainstorm

Turn a vague feature idea into clear requirements through dialogue. Define what to build, its scope, and success criteria, then capture the result in a short chat summary or a requirements document ready for implementation planning.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only unified plan. Use when the user wants to brainstorm or scope what to build. Not for executing already-specified work. Use ce-pov for a verdict on adopting a named external technology.

集成工具Slack
查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Clarifying a vague feature idea
  • Narrowing the scope of an ambitious improvement
  • Documenting requirements before implementation planning
  • Comparing approaches before choosing a direction

包含的文件(26)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB
  • references/agents/slack-researcher.md10.2 KB
  • references/approaches.md7.2 KB
  • references/bakeoff.md1.8 KB
  • references/blindspot-pass.md7.4 KB
  • references/brainstorm-sections.md25.3 KB
  • references/dialogue.md14.5 KB
  • references/handoff.md13.9 KB
  • references/html-rendering.md33.8 KB
  • references/interaction-rules.md7.5 KB
  • references/markdown-rendering.md10.6 KB
  • references/model-tiers.md1.7 KB
  • references/output-mode.md4.9 KB
  • references/phase-0.md13.7 KB
  • references/plan-write.md4.8 KB
  • references/product-pressure-test.md3.6 KB
  • references/reasoning-elevation.md17.5 KB
  • references/settled-decisions.md5.1 KB
  • references/synthesis-summary.md18.2 KB
  • references/universal-brainstorming.md7.6 KB
  • references/verdict-routing.md4.2 KB
  • references/visual-probes.md11.6 KB
  • scripts/elevation-dispatch.sh13.2 KB
  • scripts/light-webserver.js42.0 KB
  • scripts/packs-resolve.py30.8 KB
  • scripts/peer-job-runner.py101.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Brainstorm a Feature or Improvement

Brainstorming answers WHAT to build through dialogue; ce-plan then enriches the same unified plan artifact with HOW. This skill does not implement code. The current year is 2026, for dating the artifact.

Outcome: a result sized to the work that ce-plan can build on without inventing product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria: a chat paragraph for Lightweight work, or a requirements-only unified plan under <root>/plans/ when a file is earned.

Done, on the brainstorm path: that artifact is written and passes the Ready for Planning Check — or no file was written because the dialogue produced no decision that a later reader (the planner, a reviewer, or a future reader) needs recorded under a stable ID and the user asked for none — and Phase 4's handoff has been presented.

Lightweight work ends in chat. Phase 0.3 classifies the tier from the request and bounded inline reads before anything is dispatched; when the tier is uncertain, take the heavier one. Lightweight work — small, well-bounded, low ambiguity — ends in a chat paragraph with no file, no grounding scout, no approach generation, and no claim verifier. A file is earned only by a decision that a later reader needs recorded under a stable ID, or by the user asking for one.

Stop and route instead in three cases, decided by references/phase-0.md, not from memory. Each ends the run its own way, so the done condition above does not apply: non-software work, where references/universal-brainstorming.md replaces Phases 0.2–4; a verdict question about a named external candidate, where you offer the ce-pov handoff; and neither — quick help, a factual question, a single-step task — answered directly.

The feature description is what the invocation carries, whether the user wrote it or a calling skill passed it. If none came, ask the user what they want to explore and do not proceed until you have one.

mode:return-to-caller (a leading token a calling skill such as lfg sets): strip it, run the dialogue unchanged, and replace Phase 4 with the structured return references/handoff.md defines: no menu, no lfg or ce-plan invocation.

Artifact Root

Resolve <root> the first time you compose or read a <root>/ path, never earlier; a scratch-only or no-repo run that touches none skips this entirely.

<!-- ce-docs-root:start -->

Resolve the CE artifact root <root> before composing any artifact path.

  • Read docs_root from <repo-root>/.compound-engineering/config.yaml only (<repo-root> = git rev-parse --show-toplevel). Do not read it from config.local.yaml. Unset -> <root> is docs, exactly as before.
  • Validate a set value: a repo-relative directory whose real, symlink-resolved path stays inside the repo and is neither the repo root nor under .git/. Otherwise stop with an error naming docs_root and the value -- never fall back to docs.
  • Use <root> as the sole artifact location: create it if absent, compose each path as <root>/<subdir> with this skill's own subdirectory, and never also read docs.
<!-- ce-docs-root:end -->

brainstorm_output and brainstorm_model resolve by this rule instead:

<!-- ce-config-layers:start -->

Resolve ordinary CE yaml keys from the two repo files.

  • Read <repo-root>/.compound-engineering/config.local.yaml, then config.yaml (<repo-root> = git rev-parse --show-toplevel). Missing files are skipped. Gitignore does not change resolution.
  • Win with the first active (non-commented) value. For scalars, empty is unset; an invalid value continues to the next layer, then the skill default. For lists and maps, a present key — including an empty list or map — replaces the whole key.
  • Do not use this rule for docs_root — that key is config.yaml only.
<!-- ce-config-layers:end -->

Execution Flow

Phases run in this order. Each names the files it cannot run correctly without: read them when you reach it, and never do its work from this table alone.

PhaseRead firstWhat only those files carry
before the first question, and for the whole run — non-software route includedRead references/interaction-rules.mdthe Core Principles, and the Interaction Rules: one question per turn, ask only decisions the environment cannot settle, the blocking-question-tool default and the visual-probe gate that overrides it, when a question is genuinely open-ended, and the one ce-prototype routing test this skill states in full there
before treating a decision the conversation carries as settledRead references/settled-decisions.mdthe settlement test; skipping it re-asks a decided question or promotes an unexamined assertion
0.0 output modereferences/output-mode.mdthe OUTPUT_FORMAT precedence; the token-parsing convention
0.1–0.4 resume, classify, route, scopereferences/phase-0.mdresume scan; the stop-and-route classification; scope tiers; the coherent-work gate (is this one piece of work?); both tripwires (visual or spatial features; unfamiliar territory); the task list
1 understand the ideareferences/dialogue.mdcontext scan and grounding scout; opt-in Slack researcher; pressure test; blindspot and visual-probe gates; the conflict gate against existing CONCEPTS.md and verified code; Phase 1.3 exit condition
2–2.6 approaches, synthesis, verificationreferences/approaches.md, plus references/synthesis-summary.md before composing the synthesisapproach generation; model elevation; the scoping synthesis; the claim verifier
3 write the planreferences/plan-write.md, then references/brainstorm-sections.md and the rendering reference for the formatwhether a doc is warranted; the section contract; the Ready for Planning Check
4 handoffreferences/handoff.mdthe option set and its visibility conditions; the rendering-mode rule; per-selection dispatch, including what ce-plan is passed; closing summaries

These rules hold without any read:

OUTPUT_FORMAT is exclusive — markdown OR HTML, never both. The format is the first that applies: a request in this prompt, a preference the user stated earlier, config, then markdown, in every run including headless ones.

When a file is written on the brainstorm path the artifact contract does not change: write to <root>/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-<type>-<topic>-plan.<md|html>, with HHMM from local wall-clock time at write; frontmatter carries artifact_contract: ce-unified-plan/v1 and product_contract_source: ce-brainstorm; the body is a Goal Capsule plus the Product Contract. Do not emit a Goal Launch Block or Reader Index. The non-software route writes none of this.

When a file is written, do not declare it written or enter Phase 4 while any check fails in the Ready for Planning Check; a chat result enters Phase 4 (the handoff) with no check to run. An improvised handoff menu is the other silent failure: it shows options that should be hidden and passes the wrong input to the next skill.

The Phase 1.1 grounding scout, the Phase 2.6 claim verifier, and the opt-in Slack researcher are tiered by task shape, never hardcoded to a model name; read references/model-tiers.md before dispatching one. Model elevation is a separate mechanism (references/reasoning-elevation.md).

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Monitor an open GitHub pull request over time, respond to review feedback, and address automated check failures. Apply and push fixes, then report whether it appears ready to merge or what still blocks progress.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Monitoring a pull request until it appears ready to merge
  • Addressing review feedback as it arrives
  • Handling automated check failures during review
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Develop independent solutions to a defined problem, compare them against shared requirements, and combine useful contributions into a coherent recommendation. An independent assessment and evidence checks support the selection, while unresolved tradeoffs and verification needs remain explicit.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing concrete solutions to a defined problem
  • Developing rough options before choosing an approach
  • Comparing architectural or product proposals
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Review code changes or a pull request for bugs, effects on existing behavior, test gaps, and project standards. Receive findings supported by the code and a clear account of review coverage, with local fixes available when explicitly requested.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing a pull request before release
  • Checking changes for bugs and test gaps
  • Applying review findings locally
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

ce-commit

免费

Save working changes as local Git commits with messages that explain the outcome. Follow the project's commit style, select files explicitly, and split clearly separate changes into a few logical commits when appropriate.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Saving completed work as a local commit
  • Writing messages that explain the outcome
  • Separating unrelated changes into commits
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Commit and push code changes, then open a pull request with a clear title and description. You can also draft or update PR descriptions and hand published requests to the follow-up monitoring workflow.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Committing changes and opening a pull request
  • Drafting only a PR title and description
  • Updating an existing PR description
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Document a solved and verified problem when its reasoning is missing from code, tests, and existing documentation. Save one durable lesson in the repository so future agents can find it and avoid repeating substantial investigation.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Recording reasoning behind a verified fix
  • Preserving lessons to prevent recurring mistakes
  • Updating a lesson that has become inaccurate
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

查看 EveryInc 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题