PluginBench
Skill
Review
Audit score 70

ce-brainstorm

everyinc/compound-engineering-plugin

Explore vague ideas into a right-sized requirements-only plan before building.

What is ce-brainstorm?

Brainstorm answers WHAT to build through structured dialogue, producing either a chat summary for lightweight work or a unified plan document for larger scope. Use this when scoping or exploring a feature idea; use ce-plan afterward to detail HOW to build it.

  • Classifies work tier (lightweight vs. document-worthy) from the initial request
  • Conducts grounding dialogue to understand the idea, pressure-test assumptions, and surface blindspots
  • Generates and synthesizes multiple approaches to the problem
  • Verifies claims and ensures the scope is coherent and buildable
  • Produces a requirements-only unified plan artifact or chat summary, ready for the planning phase

How to install ce-brainstorm

npx skills add https://github.com/everyinc/compound-engineering-plugin --skill ce-brainstorm
Prerequisites
  • Git repository with `.compound-engineering/config.yaml` (optional; uses `docs` as default artifact root)
  • Clarity on what problem or feature idea you want to explore (the skill will ask if not provided)
Claude Code
Cursor
Windsurf
Cline

How to use ce-brainstorm

  1. 1.Invoke the skill with a feature idea or problem statement
  2. 2.Engage in the brainstorm dialogue—answer questions about context, constraints, and success criteria
  3. 3.Review the pressure-tested understanding and approach options presented
  4. 4.Confirm the scope and decision points that emerge from synthesis
  5. 5.Receive either a chat summary (lightweight work) or a unified plan document (larger scope) ready for ce-plan

Use cases

Good for
  • Exploring a vague feature request into concrete requirements before committing to implementation
  • Scoping an ambitious product idea to right-size the work and identify success criteria
  • Brainstorming improvements to an existing system with unclear boundaries or trade-offs
  • Validating that a proposed feature is coherent and doesn't conflict with existing product decisions
  • Preparing a decision artifact for stakeholder review before moving to detailed planning
Who it's for
  • Product managers and engineers scoping new work
  • Teams deciding what to build before detailed planning begins
  • Developers exploring feature ideas with unclear requirements
  • Technical leads validating scope and approach before handoff to implementation

ce-brainstorm FAQ

When should I use ce-brainstorm vs. ce-plan?

Use ce-brainstorm first to explore WHAT to build and validate scope. Once you have a settled requirements plan, use ce-plan to detail HOW to build it.

What if my work is small and well-bounded?

Lightweight work ends in a chat paragraph with no file. A plan document is only written when a decision needs a stable ID for later readers or you explicitly request one.

Can ce-brainstorm help me evaluate a specific technology?

No—use ce-pov instead for verdicts on adopting named external technologies. Ce-brainstorm focuses on scoping the feature or problem itself.

What does the output look like?

Either a chat summary (for lightweight work) or a requirements-only unified plan file under `<root>/plans/` with Goal Capsule and Product Contract sections, ready for ce-plan to build on.

What if the idea is not software?

The skill will route you to universal-brainstorming instead, which follows a different dialogue structure for non-software work.

Full instructions (SKILL.md)

Source of truth, from everyinc/compound-engineering-plugin.


name: ce-brainstorm description: "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." argument-hint: "[feature idea or problem to explore] [output:html]"

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).