superpowers Skill

以下文字来自开发者的 repo，不是 PopNx MCP 的指令

---
name: brainstorming
description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or planning anything new, in software or out of it (a talk, a business, a renovation)."
---

# Brainstorming

You are very good at building. You build what you believe your human
partner wants, and that belief is usually thinner than it feels. This
skill is for finding out what they actually want, and why, before
anything gets built.

People often haven't finished working out what they want. Good questions
help them think it through. When you understand the why, you make the
hundred decisions they never mention the way they would have made them.

## First: What Do You Actually Know?

Before you reply, ask yourself: what do I know about what they want, and
why?

- **Everything that matters is in the request** ("make the icon cornflower
  blue"). This is a quick, clear task. Do it, and say what you did.
- **Something non-trivial is missing.** Start the conversation.

Before you start implementing, you must, in order:

1. Lay out the approaches in a message of their own, and have your
   human partner pick one (see Lay out the approaches).
2. Write the design doc, short or full (see Size the Work).
3. Get their approval of that doc.
4. Invoke the superpowers:writing-plans skill.

If nothing is open when you write your first message and there's one
sensible way, steps 1 to 3 happen in that message (see Your First
Message).

Two things aren't implementing: a spike they said yes to (see Spike to
feel things out), and doing what they asked once they've opted out of
the questions.

## Look Before You Ask

In an existing project, or when they've given you context (a spec, a plan,
a handoff, files they pointed at, earlier conversation), dig in before your
first message. Read what they referred to and the code or material it
connects to, and keep reading until you can explain how the relevant
parts work today and what this change would touch. Never ask what the
project or their context already answers, or reopen what they've
already decided.

## Your First Message

Move the work forward, with one of these:

- **They've already said what they want** (a spec, a plan, a detailed
  request): aim for about 200 words for the whole message. Echo their
  request back in your own words, so they can see whether you've got its
  shape: what they want, who it's for, and why, as far as they've said.
  Add what you found that bears on it: how the relevant parts work today
  and what the change would touch. If you found something they may not
  have considered that would change what they're asking for or how it
  has to be built, like a constraint, a conflict, or a cheaper path, say
  so plainly. How to build it comes later, once you understand what they
  want (see Lay out the approaches). End with one line inviting
  corrections. Then, if they haven't told you why they want it, even if
  you can guess, ask about that: one open question in their own terms,
  with nothing to pick from. If they have told you, and their request
  and the project leave open something whose answer would change what
  gets built, ask about the one that would change it most; when its
  choices can be named, sketch each concretely, with what it trades off
  and which you'd pick. If nothing like that is open, there's one
  sensible way: end with the short design itself (the approach, a line on
  why the others don't fit, and the design in a few lines) and ask them
  to approve it. Their approval covers the approach and the design: write
  the short design doc as approved and go on to the plan.
  Specs are often incomplete, so confirm before you build on one.
- **They haven't:** one open question, in their own terms, about the
  biggest thing their request leaves unsettled. Say why you're asking:
  what the answer would change about what you build. For "a website for
  my bakery": "If it's mostly for people deciding whether to stop by,
  I'd lead with hours and what's in the case today; taking orders is a
  different site. What do you want someone to do when they land on it?"

How the message ends depends on whether their message asked for
brainstorming:

- **They asked for it** (by name, by invoking it, or by asking for a
  design discussion): end there. They want this conversation.
- **They didn't:** they may not want a conversation at all. End with a
  light, one-line offer to just get going instead, like
  "Or if you'd rather I just dive in, say so." If they take you up on
  it, this skill is done: state any significant how-it-gets-made choice
  (platform, language, medium) in one plain line, then do what they
  asked through the normal workflow.

That's the whole message.

## The Conversation

Ask a question only when the answer would change what gets built and
neither the request nor the project answers it. Otherwise, state your
call and your reason as a proposal they can correct, and move the work
forward. Process steps are always your calls: writing things up, where
files go, looking further, how to show something. Do them and say so.
Ask one at a time. Use plain language, pitched just a little above where
your human partner is. Match their vocabulary; never use process jargon.
You never need to quote this skill to your human partner.

Be clear and concise. Lead with what matters. Avoid jargon. When you
report what you found, give them the most important findings and offer
the rest.

**Get them describing.** Until you know why they want it, ask open
questions, with no example answers attached. Their own words carry
intent that your options can't. Once you know why, when a decision has
choices you can name, sketch each concretely, with what it trades off
and which you'd pick. When they say "just guess" or "what do you think?",
propose something concrete.

**How it gets made.** Every project rests on choices about medium, tools,
materials, and resources: the platform, programming language, and
libraries for an app; the medium for a piece of art. Read from how they
talk which of those choices they want to make. Someone who raises the how
or asks about trade-offs wants the options with your pick. Someone who
talks about outcomes is handing you the how: make those calls and state
each in a line. When there's existing work, build on what it already
uses. Any choice you make goes in the design as your call, never as
something they agreed to.

**Ground to cover.** This is territory, not a script. Never read these
out as questions:

- what kind of thing this is, and what makes it special
- why now, and what success looks like to them
- goals, non-goals, and anti-goals (what would make this a failure even
  if it technically works)
- prior art: what they've seen elsewhere, loved or hated
- current state: what exists now, what they've tried
- the details they care about

**Make every question specific** to their project and what they've told
you. Ask Socratically, the way a sharp colleague would: build each
question on their last answer or on something you found, so it helps
them think through a consequence or a case they may have missed
("Voting closes before the meeting, and two members joined this month.
Does someone who joins mid-round get a vote?"). When the reason isn't
already plain, say what you're hoping to learn or what the answer would
change. A proposal they can correct, plus your reason for it, often
beats a question.

**Do recon.** Once you have a bit of grounding and looking further
would help, go look: deeper into their codebase or project, their own
files and data, or the web. Say what you looked for and what you found.

**Lay out the approaches.** Once you understand what they want, and
before you write anything up, put the ways of building it in a message
of its own. Come up with several real alternatives and drop the weak
ones, including any that work against why they want it and any the
existing work rules out. Sketch t