brainstorming

Execute

→ Direct grilling or plan/design pressure-test? → Enter Grilling Mode below. Soft challenge intent? → Use its one-line mode confirmation. Do not start normal design artifacts, document writing, task planning, or implementation during the interview. → New feature, product behavior, UI/component design, architecture/contract change, or ambiguous medium/high-complexity work? → Design first. No implementation until the needed design/spec is approved.

1. Explore project context → read authority docs, check for existing patterns
2. Ask clarifying questions one at a time (prefer multiple choice)
3. Propose 2-3 approaches with trade-offs and your recommendation
4. Present design sections → get user approval after each
5. Write spec → self-review → user review → transition to writing-plans → HARD GATE: For tasks that match this skill, do NOT write code, scaffold projects, or invoke implementation skills until design/spec approval is satisfied.

Route Fixtures

These rows are calibration expectations for method behavior, not a runtime regex router. The Agent selects the route from evidence; route selection is not a user question.

Scenario	Route
想法还没想清楚，先梳理功能设计	normal brainstorming, compact output first
讨论公共 API 契约和兼容边界	normal brainstorming, design sections before implementation
盘问/拷问/审问这个方案，不要顺着我	Grilling Mode
修复登录按钮的空指针	systematic-debugging
review 当前 PR / diff / 当前代码	requesting-code-review
给我一个有目标的方案	goal-framing when goal intent is explicit; otherwise normal brainstorming
把按钮文案从保存改成提交	fast-path; no design ceremony

Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs

Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.

Start by understanding the current project context and authority boundary, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the smallest design artifact that stabilizes the work and get the required approval.

Grilling Mode

Mode Precedence

While Grilling Mode is active, it overrides the normal brainstorming execution flow. Suspend Checklist, The Process, the Compact output contract, and all documentation or design-transition requirements until the user exits the interview; retain the no-implementation hard gates.

Grilling Entry Signals

• Direct: The user asks to grill or interrogate an idea, plan, or design, or explicitly requests a pressure-test. Direct phrases include grill me, grill this plan, 审问我, 盘问我, and 拷问我. Enter the mode immediately.
• Soft: The user asks to challenge assumptions, find holes, red-team, or "别顺着我" about a draft idea, plan, or design. Ask only: Grill or normal brainstorming? Enter the mode only after confirmation.
• Not grilling: A bare/literal phrase reference, or a PR, diff, or current-code review. Explain literal phrases normally; route implementation review to requesting-code-review.

Opening Card

After the user has entered the mode, emit this once in the user's language, then begin the interview:

◆ Grilling Session
Target: <idea / plan / design>
Question path: value -> boundaries -> failure modes -> acceptance
Pace: deep (default) | fast (user-requested)

Pace

• Deep: Ask exactly one decision question per turn when it is blocking or depends on the previous answer. State the recommended answer and the most relevant trade-off before waiting.
• Fast: Only when the user explicitly asks for a fast or batched interview (for example, fast, batch, 快问, or 一次问几个), ask at most three independent decision questions. Give each question its recommendation and trade-off, then wait for the user's responses. Return to deep pace for dependent follow-ups.

1. Explore the codebase and current authority docs for facts before asking. Do not ask the user for facts that can be found locally.
2. The user owns the decision. Do not treat a recommendation, a tentative answer, or a shared-understanding checkpoint as final approval.
3. Aside from the one-time opening card, keep the turn to the observation, recommendation, and the selected pace's questions. Do not emit a full design ceremony, write docs, create a plan, or implement while the interview is active.
4. End when the user says to stop, defer, or that the questions are sufficient. Reconfirm in a structured Challenge Result. That summary does not grant completion authority.

Challenge Result
- Survived assumptions
- Rejected assumptions
- New evidence needed
- Design changes required
- Residual risks
- Return state: interview | design | approaches | writing-plans

5. If the user asks to proceed after the interview, return to the normal brainstorming design gate. A design/spec still needs the required approval before planning or implementation.

Route Away / Doc Necessity Gate

Do not force this workflow onto low-complexity work. A tiny wording edit, single-owner bug fix, simple config/status question, local utility change, or mechanical multi-file change can proceed through concise intent, baseline check, TDD/debugging, and verification without any new document. Run the Doc Necessity Gate before writing any spec, plan, ADR, or baseline artifact:

1. Does an existing spec/plan/ADR/baseline already cover this change surface? -> Update that owner document in place; never create a sibling document.
2. Is the surface durable/irreversible (schema, public API, owner, dependency direction, migration, compat-path retirement), cross-session/cross-person handoff, approval-gated, or authority-required? -> Yes: write the smallest artifact for that surface (see Documentation). -> No: write no document; keep compact drafts in-session.
3. Re-check at edit time and at closeout; escalate to the smallest stabilizing spec if uncertainty or impact grows.

Route Precedence

1. Route-away cases leave this workflow first (systematic-debugging, requesting-code-review, goal-framing when goal intent is explicit, fast-path micro-tasks).
2. Grilling Mode requires explicit challenge intent. Ordinary discussion, evaluation, or the need to clarify understanding is not grilling.
3. Otherwise run the normal brainstorming flow and escalate depth on evidence: contracts, owners, persistence, migration, security, consumer count, or blast radius. Escalate after evidence, not merely because the first request sounds ambitious.
4. File count alone is not a design signal: a mechanical multi-file change can still be fast-path, and a one-file contract change can still be full design.

Role And Authority Contract

Agent-owned decisions

Resolve these directly without asking the user:

• repository investigation strategy and evidence gathering order
• file and function organization inside an accepted owner
• testing commands and proportional verification mechanics
• inline versus subagent execution when policy already allows it
• reversible implementation structure that does not change product behavior, contract, authority, or durable boundaries

User-owned decisions

Ask the user only for:

• product behavior or preference
• irreversible, destructive, external, public, production, or sensitive impact
• explicit product/contract commitments only the user can make
• necessary information unavailable from repository, tools, and authority docs

Every user question must pass this test:

If the user chooses another answer, which design boundary, behavior, owner, acceptance criterion, or risk decision changes?

If none changes, do not ask. When a question passes this test, attach a recommended option and the reason for it, so the user decides between framed choices instead of researching. This classification clarifies which decisions are user-owned; it does not remove the approval points this workflow already defines.

Checklist

You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:

1. Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits, authority docs, and passively consume relevant active CONTEXT.md language without loading active modeling
2. Choose the path and scope — real design? diagnosis? route accordingly or decompose first
3. Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
4. Draft working artifacts — TaskIntentDraft, BaselineReadSetHint, BaselineUsageDraft, ImpactStatementDraft
5. Run existence check when adding new surfaces — only if an approach adds a new owner, skill, artifact, adapter, fallback, workflow step, or benchmark metric
6. Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
7. Present design — in sections scaled to complexity, get user approval where required
8. Write spec artifact — only after the Doc Necessity Gate passes and no existing owner spec/plan covers the surface; if covered, update that document instead of creating a sibling
9. Spec self-review — check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope, boundary
10. User reviews written spec — ask user to review before proceeding
11. Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill (terminal state)

The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke any other implementation skill.

The Process

Understanding the idea:

• Check current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
• Read relevant authority docs before asking deep questions
• Use existing canonical terms in questions, options, scenarios, and the spec. If terminology crystallizes or conflicts, compose establishing-project-context; do not leave the resolution only in the spec.
• If the request is diagnosis/root-cause/follow-up to an approved plan → route to correct workflow
• If the request spans multiple independent subsystems → flag and decompose first
• Ask clarifying questions one at a time, prefer multiple choice
• Separate facts, assumptions, unknowns while exploring

Working artifacts: Keep four drafts: TaskIntentDraft (outcome, goal, success evidence, stop condition, non-goals, scope, risks), BaselineReadSetHint (candidate docs, authority gaps), BaselineUsageDraft (required refs, optionally delivered context refs, acknowledged-before-plan refs, cited refs, missing refs, advisory decision), and ImpactStatementDraft (affected layers, owners, invariants, compat, non-goals). Refresh when scope changes.

Compact output contract: Aegis Visibility, TaskIntentDraft, BaselineReadSetHint, BaselineUsageDraft, Requirement Ready Check, ImpactStatementDraft, Existence Check, Product Risk Lens, Architecture Integrity Lens, Prior-Art & Reuse Lens, Baseline Role Alignment, Plan-Time Complexity Check, Options, and Decision Needed. Use this compact shape before expanding into a full design structure.

Aegis Visibility for this workflow names why design/spec clarification comes before implementation and what drift, overbuild, wrong-owner, or missing acceptance risk that restraint reduces. Keep it natural and task-specific; do not turn it into a fixed skill trace.

Use a compact BaselineUsageDraft whenever the design direction depends on specific baseline docs or current-authority refs:

BaselineUsageDraft:
- Required baseline refs:
- Delivered context refs:
- Acknowledged before plan refs:
- Cited in design refs:
- Missing refs:
- Decision: continue | needs-baseline-readback | needs-verification | pause-for-user | blocked

Delivered context refs is optional host-projected bookkeeping only. It is not authoritative proof that a host injected or the model internally consumed a context payload. The artifact exists to make baseline/context attention drift visible before the design is recommended or approved.

Use a compact Requirement Ready Check before recommending a design when the requirement is not already confirmed and complete:

Requirement Ready Check:
- Requirement source refs:
- Goals and scope refs:
- User / scenario refs:
- Requirement item refs:
- Acceptance / verification criteria refs:
- Open blocker questions:
- Decision: ready | needs-source | needs-goal-alignment | needs-scenario | needs-acceptance-criteria | needs-clarification | needs-user-decision | blocked

Treat task intent, conversation, source documents, and agent inference as candidate requirement sources until project authority confirms them. If the decision is not ready, keep the design at proposal/spec clarification level; do not turn the gap into implementation tasks.

Existence Check: Before recommending an approach that adds a new owner, skill, artifact, host adapter, fallback, compatibility path, workflow step, or benchmark metric, check whether it needs to exist. Use docs/current/AEGIS_MINIMALITY_REFERENCE.md as the reference. Do not force this onto ordinary feature design that reuses existing owners and artifacts.

Existence Check:
- Proposed new surface:
- Existing owner / reuse candidate:
- Why existing surface is insufficient:
- Creation proof:
- Entropy / retirement impact:
- Decision: reuse-existing | add-with-proof | defer | reject | needs-first-principles-review

If the decision is reuse-existing, recommend the reuse path instead of a new surface. If the decision is add-with-proof, carry the proof, verification signal, and any retirement trigger into the design/spec.

Product Risk Lens: For ambiguous product, feature, UI, workflow, or architecture choices, add a compact review lens, not persona roleplay:

Product Risk Lens:
- Value:
- Non-goals:
- Trade-offs:
- Decision needed:

This is a review lens, not persona output. It does not override baseline evidence, approved requirements, or current authority docs; it only makes the product risk and decision point visible before implementation.

Plan-Time Complexity Check: Before choosing an implementation direction for medium/high work, inspect the likely owner files and current shape. This is an advisory design pressure check, not a gate and not completion authority. Do not force it onto tiny low-risk edits.

Use using-aegis/references/complexity-governance.md for the shared artifact classes, pressure-signal interpretation, and over-budget handling.

Complexity Budget:
- Artifact class:
- Target files / artifacts:
- Current pressure:
- Projected post-change pressure:
- Budget result: within-budget | at-risk | over-budget
- Planned governance:

Plan-Time Complexity Check:
- Better file boundary:
- Recommendation: edit-in-place | extract helper | add owner file | split task | defer refactor

Exploring approaches: Propose 2-3 approaches with trade-offs and recommendation. Make scope boundary explicit: what's in, what's deferred, what belongs elsewhere.

Before approach selection, use Existence Check for any proposed new surface. Escalate to first-principles-review and its Decision Hygiene Review when the candidate direction still introduces a new owner, duplicate owner, fallback, adapter, compat-only carrier, delete-first question, unverified assumption, or "long-term stable" claim after the existence check. Do not make either check a universal design ceremony; return to this workflow once the decision surface is clean.

When the central decision is internal retirement vs compat retention vs persistent-state confirmation, compose anti-entropy-governance. It classifies the deletion target, chooses delete-first | compat-exception | confirmation-first, and keeps destructive authority outside the design skill.

Use the narrower Architecture Integrity Lens when the main risk is not broad strategy but architecture coherence: unclear canonical owner, responsibility overlap, caller-side fallback, stale path carrying real logic, or a possible higher-level owner / contract / source-of-truth simplification. The lens should answer invariant, canonical owner / contract, responsibility overlap, higher-level simplification, retirement / falsifier, and verdict before the approach is recommended.

Prior-Art & Reuse Lens: When a candidate approach would introduce a new mechanism, protocol, artifact shape, or nontrivial interaction pattern, check proven external practice before inventing one. This lens is behavior-triggered: research precedents when the direction is novel for the project, plausible approaches remain after internal reuse checks, or the domain sits outside current repository evidence. Do not run research ceremony for routine work that already maps to well-known framework patterns, and do not let an unavailable web/search tool stall approach selection.

Prior-Art & Reuse Lens:
- Searched precedents: <bounded sources; index-first summary; cite anchor per claim>
- Adopt verbatim: <proven pattern + source>
- Adapt with reason: <tailored part -> project constraint / non-negotiable it maps to>
- Reject with reason: <project fact that makes the pattern inapplicable>
- Degraded: <no web/search tooling -> external basis unknown; internal-only evidence stated>

Search results are evidence candidates, not prompt payload: summarize index-first and cite anchors instead of pasting raw pages. An "industry standard" claim without a citable anchor stays unknown. Every adapt/reject decision binds to a named project constraint or fact, not taste. The lens feeds only the approach recommendation; it stays advisory and grants no completion authority.

Baseline Role Alignment: When a question may involve both "what should be built" and "where it should live", keep requirement truth separate from architecture truth:

Baseline Role Alignment:
- Product / Requirement Baseline:
- Architecture / Runtime Boundary Baseline:
- Result: aligned | Design Defect | Implementation Drift | missing-authority | needs-clarification
- scope: requirements | architecture | both
- Next action:

Use Design Defect when the relevant requirement, design, or baseline is wrong. Use Implementation Drift when the work deviates from a correct unchanged baseline. Architecture Defect and Architecture Drift remain compatibility aliases for architecture-scoped Design Defect and architecture-scoped Implementation Drift. This is a review lens, not a runtime gate or completion authority.

Presenting the design: Scale sections to complexity. Cover only the surfaces that matter: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing, compatibility boundary. Get approval for the design before implementation when behavior, contract, architecture, or user-facing flow is being decided.

ADR signals: When the design/spec touches durable architecture surfaces (owner, public contract, artifact shape, dependency direction, source-of-truth, host compatibility, runtime-ready boundary, fallback, adapter, or retirement schedule), mark the ADR signal, source refs, real alternatives, and expected baseline-sync question for later completion. Do not create accepted architecture memory from unexecuted ideas.

Design for isolation: Each unit = one clear purpose, well-defined interface, testable independently. Can someone understand it without reading internals? Can you change internals without breaking consumers?

Existing codebases: Follow existing patterns. Include targeted improvements only when they serve the current goal. If the design touches contracts, compat, fallbacks, or duplicated owners → call it out directly.

Design Probe

A probe is allowed only when it can change the design direction and existing repository evidence is insufficient:

Design Probe
- Question
- Expected decision impact
- Target and effect boundary
- Why existing evidence is insufficient
- Stop condition
- Evidence produced
- Cleanup

Prefer read-only execution. A disposable probe must not create a maintained owner, public contract, compatibility promise, or hidden persistence path. It is design evidence, not delivered implementation.

Software Scenario Profiles

Apply only the relevant profile instead of loading every lens for every task:

• greenfield-feature: value, smallest deliverable behavior, minimum owner, acceptance, explicit future non-goals;
• existing-system-change: current state, target state, the delta between them, preserved invariants, callers, migration, and retirement;
• refactor: preserved observable behavior, owner/coupling defect, dependency direction, old-path retirement, behavior-preservation evidence;
• public-contract: consumers, versioning, precedence, errors, compatibility, migration, negative cases;
• persistence-migration: data owner, schema evolution, partial migration, crash recovery, backup/rollback, read/write cutover;
• ui-workflow: user journey and loading/empty/error/partial/success/cancel/ retry states, accessibility, irreversible actions, recovery;
• security-permission: trust boundary, attacker capability, authority owner, sensitive data, downgrade/revocation, safe failure, auditability;
• operational-release: deployment boundary, observability, partial rollout, rollback, compatibility window, operator recovery.

Design Ready And Design Complete

Approach selection is ready when:

• the desired outcome and primary scenario are known;
• scope and non-goals are explicit;
• current behavior and the target delta are grounded;
• key invariants and the likely canonical owner are identified;
• at least one observable acceptance criterion exists;
• no open unknown can still change the approach category.

Not every unknown must be eliminated; only decision-changing unknowns block convergence.

The design can hand off when all applicable conditions hold:

• the selected approach and canonical owner are explicit;
• fixed behavior/contract and implementation-owned choices are separated;
• alternatives were materially compared or excluded by evidence;
• critical assumptions have evidence or explicit acceptance;
• failure/recovery and consumer impact are covered where applicable;
• acceptance criteria are observable and usable by verification;
• new owners, fallbacks, adapters, compatibility, or persistence have creation proof and retirement/rollback treatment;
• every user-owned decision has real user approval.

Design Complete is method readiness, not completion authority. Transition to writing-plans only after these conditions hold; do not carry unresolved decision-changing unknowns into the plan.

After the Design

Documentation: