Brainstorm
Skill oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/plugins/elixir-phoenix/skills/brainstorm
Claude Code plugin for Elixir/Phoenix/LiveView — 20 specialist agents, Iron Laws enforcement, and Tidewave MCP integration. Plan features with parallel research agents, execute with automatic verification, review with 4-agent parallel audits, and capture learnings as reusable knowledge.
npx -y skills add oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix --skill brainstormAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Brainstorm Elixir/Phoenix features — explore ideas, compare approaches, gather requirements. Use when vague idea, not sure how to approach, or want to discuss before plan.
SKILL.md
6.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Brainstorm — Adaptive Requirements Gathering
Interactive interview → research → synthesis loop. Produces structured
interview.md that /phx:plan detects and consumes (skipping clarification).
Usage
/phx:brainstorm Add some kind of notification system
/phx:brainstorm Improve authentication security
/phx:brainstorm # starts with open question
Workflow
/phx:brainstorm {topic}
|
v
[INTERVIEW] ←──────────────────┐
| |
v (sufficient OR user exit) |
[DECISION POINT] |
├─ Research ──→ [RESEARCH] ─┘
├─ Continue interview ──────┘
├─ Make a plan ──→ STOP (suggest /phx:plan {slug})
├─ Store & exit ──→ STOP (artifacts saved)
└─ Discuss ──→ freeform ──→ [DECISION POINT]
Phase 1: Adaptive Interview
Create .claude/plans/{slug}/ directory. Start asking ONE question at a time.
Coverage Dimensions
Track coverage across 6 dimensions (0=uncovered, 1=partial, 2=sufficient). Ask Scope early — for "optimize X" topics, ask about boundaries (upstream OK? Local-only? CI vs dev?) before research, not during.
| Dim | Target | Sufficient signal |
|---|---|---|
| What | Specific behavior/features | Concrete verbs, not "some kind of" |
| Why | Problem solved, user need | Clear benefit stated |
| Scope | In/out boundaries | Explicit exclusions stated |
| Where | Modules, contexts, pages | File paths or context names mentioned |
| How | Approach, constraints | At least one concrete constraint |
| Edge | Error states, scale, auth | 2+ edge cases identified |
Interview is "sufficient" when total score >= 8 out of 12.
Context-Aware Questioning
Before each question, run a brief codebase scan on topics the user mentioned:
- User mentions a topic (e.g., "notifications") → run Grep/Glob for related patterns
- Use scan results to ground your next question in what actually exists
- Unknown/niche topic → suggest research pause before continuing
Signal Detection
- Vague answer ("maybe", "not sure") → probe deeper on same dimension
- Niche topic mentioned → "This involves {X}. Want me to research it first?"
- Detailed answer covering 3+ dimensions → mark all covered, advance
- No new coverage for 2 consecutive questions → suggest moving to Decision Point
Phase 2: Decision Point
MANDATORY: Write interview.md FIRST, then use AskUserQuestion. Never let the conversation flow past this point without a formal choice.
-
Write current state to
.claude/plans/{slug}/interview.md -
Show coverage summary: "Coverage: What 2/2 | Why 2/2 | Scope 1/2 | ..."
-
Use AskUserQuestion with EXACTLY these options (4 max — the tool's hard limit; the auto-added "Other" covers freeform discussion):
- Research — search codebase + internet for approaches (2 agents)
- Continue interview — ask more questions
- Make a plan — I'll suggest:
/phx:plan .claude/plans/{slug}/interview.md - Store & exit — save everything, come back later
-
Wait for user response. Do NOT proceed without explicit choice
AskUserQuestion discipline: decisions only, never narration or rhetorical check-ins. Every option states concrete impact (what happens, what it costs) so the user can pick without follow-up questions.
Phase 3: Research (Diverge → Evaluate → Converge)
First cycle: MAX 2 agents — keep it fast (~2-3 min). Spawn in ONE
Tool Use block with run_in_background: true:
phoenix-patterns-analyst: "How does this codebase handle {topics}?" Write to.claude/plans/{slug}/research/codebase-scan.mdweb-researcher: "Elixir/Phoenix approaches to {topics}" Return 500-word summary
Do NOT spawn additional specialist agents in the first cycle. If user wants deeper investigation, they pick "More research" at the next Decision Point — then spawn focused agents for specific questions.
Evaluate — for each approach found:
- Thesis: why it works for THIS codebase
- Antithesis: why it might NOT work (scale, complexity, pattern conflicts)
Converge — present 2-3 approaches with honest trade-offs. Do NOT recommend one. Return to Decision Point (AskUserQuestion).
See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/research-integration.md for details.
Iron Laws
- NEVER auto-transition to
/phx:plan— always present as option, let user choose - ONE question at a time — never dump a question list
- Always write artifacts —
interview.mdis the contract with/phx:plan - Scan codebase between questions — every question must be context-aware
- AskUserQuestion at EVERY decision point — never flow past without formal choice. This is the most critical law. After interview, after research, after discuss — ALWAYS present options via AskUserQuestion. Never let conversation skip the checkpoint
- STOP after presenting options — do not proceed without user input
- MAX 2 agents in first research cycle — deeper dives are subsequent cycles. User picks "More research" to go deeper, not the skill
Integration
/phx:brainstorm ──→ interview.md ──→ /phx:plan (skips clarification)
──→ /phx:plan --existing (deepens)
──→ stored for later session
Position: optional upstream of /phx:plan in workflow cycle.
References
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/interview-techniques.md— coverage scoring, question templates, scan patterns, signal detection, interview.md format${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/research-integration.md— diverge-evaluate-converge, agent spawn templates, approach presentation format