---
name: brainstorm
description: Optional divergent-then-convergent dialogue for fuzzy ideas. Invoked from the idea skill as a prelude to structured elaboration; produces one ElaborationRound of decision-point Q&A and returns control. Never writes files, never posts comments, never validates elaboration.
license: AGPL-3.0
metadata:
  author: chorus
  version: "0.22.0"
  category: project-management
  mcp_server: chorus
---

# Brainstorm Skill

A divergent-then-convergent dialogue cadence for ideas whose direction is still being formed. Compresses the conversation into one `ElaborationRound` of decision-point Q&A — same shape as a structured elaboration round, but the questions, options and answers are synthesized at the end of the conversation rather than asked up front.

This skill is a **producer** of one elaboration round; the **scheduler** decision (validate vs. follow-up) belongs to the calling idea skill.

> **Tool namespace:** Chorus tools are exposed by the connected MCP server under a `chorus__` prefix on OpenClaw (e.g. `chorus__chorus_get_idea`). Bare names are used below for readability — prepend `chorus__` when invoking. See `/chorus` for the full rule.

> **OpenClaw interaction model:** OpenClaw has no `AskUserQuestion` primitive. Every "ask the user" step below is a **plain-text prompt** — write the question (and options) in your message and wait for the user's free-text reply before continuing. The one-question-at-a-time cadence still holds: send one question, read the answer, then send the next.

---

## When invoked

Only as a sub-step of the idea skill, only after the user has explicitly opted in (via the idea skill's plain-text Brainstorm prompt). Never run standalone, never run without user opt-in. The expected entry point is the idea skill's "Step 4.5: Brainstorm Mode (Optional Prelude)" — see the idea skill for the surrounding flow.

---

## Research boundary

Reuse the calling Idea's findings and follow `/research` ([shared rules](../research/SKILL.md)); switching into brainstorm does not grant a second investigation. If the goal needed focusing first, after the user selects a direction and before synthesis, apply the caller's optional research decision once with that focus. Return any findings alongside the synthesized round for the Idea caller to persist. Research does not choose the user's direction, remove the opt-in/selection gate, write files/comments, or resolve elaboration.

## Hard rules

1. **One question at a time.** Each prompt MUST contain exactly one question. Wait for the user's reply before asking the next.
2. **Multi-choice preferred.** Frame each question as 2-4 options where possible (offer them as a lettered list in your plain-text prompt). Open-ended is acceptable when options would be premature, but lean toward concrete choices.
3. **Propose 2-3 directions before stopping divergence.** Once the requirement direction is clear enough to enumerate, present 2-3 distinct approaches in a single prompt. Mark exactly one as the recommended option and say why (the dominant tradeoff).
4. **Explicit user approval required to exit divergence.** Do NOT proceed to synthesis until the user has selected one of the proposed directions in their reply.
5. **No files written.** Do NOT write any markdown, design doc, scratch file, or any other file to disk. The conversation produces an `ElaborationRound` and nothing else on disk.
6. **No comments posted.** Do NOT call `chorus_add_comment` from this skill. Comments belong to the idea skill or the user, not to the brainstorm step.
7. **No design-doc handoff.** Do NOT invoke `writing-plans`, `writing-skills`, or any skill whose purpose is to produce a design document. The brainstorm output is the synthesized round — there is no separate doc.
8. **No `validate_elaboration` call.** Do NOT call `chorus_pm_validate_elaboration` from this skill. Whether to resolve the elaboration or open a follow-up round (`chorus_pm_start_elaboration` again) is the calling idea skill's decision, not this skill's.

---

## Step-by-step

### 1. Gather context

Before asking the first divergent question, read the idea and surrounding project state. Mirror the idea skill's gather-context list:

```
chorus_get_idea({ ideaUuid })
chorus_get_documents({ projectUuid })
chorus_get_document({ documentUuid })   # for any document worth reading in full
chorus_get_proposals({ projectUuid, status: "approved" })   # to understand patterns
chorus_list_tasks({ projectUuid })   # to avoid duplicating existing work
chorus_get_comments({ targetType: "idea", targetUuid: ideaUuid })
```

Skim each result for: stated background, stated requirements, stated constraints, and what is conspicuously NOT stated. The gaps are the questions worth asking.

### 2. Divergent Q&A

Ask one question at a time as a plain-text prompt. Aim to surface:

- The **goal** the idea is trying to serve (often more abstract than the idea statement).
- The **constraints** that exclude entire branches of solution space (deadlines, compatibility, scope).
- The **success criteria** — how will the user know this is done.

Keep each question single-purpose. If you need to ask three things, that is three prompts, not one combined message.

### 3. Propose 2-3 directions

When the goal, constraints, and success criteria are clear enough that you can name distinct approaches, present them in a single plain-text prompt:

```
Based on what you've told me, here are three directions. Which do you want? (reply A / B / C, or describe your own)

A) <Option A — RECOMMENDED> — <what + tradeoff>
B) <Option B> — <what + tradeoff>
C) <Option C> — <what + tradeoff>

I recommend A because <one sentence about the dominant tradeoff>.
```

State **why** you recommend one option — usually a sentence about the dominant tradeoff.

### 4. Wait for explicit approval

Do not proceed to synthesis if the user has not selected one of the options in their reply. If the user picks "Other" with free text, treat that as a new constraint — go back to step 2 or step 3 with the refined direction.

### 5. Synthesize decision-point Q&A

For each material decision the user made during the conversation, build one `ElaborationQuestion`. A "material decision" is a moment where the user chose between alternatives or set scope explicitly. Map each decision per the synthesis spec below.

### 6. Persist the round

Call `chorus_pm_start_elaboration` with the synthesized questions:

```
chorus_pm_start_elaboration({
  ideaUuid,
  depth: "standard",
  questions: [
    { id: "q1", text: "...", category: "...", options: [...] },
    ...
  ]
})
```

Then submit the answers in one call:

```
chorus_answer_elaboration({
  ideaUuid,
  roundUuid,
  answers: [
    { questionId: "q1", selectedOptionId: "...", customText: "<rationale>" },
    ...
  ]
})
```

### 7. Return control

Stop here. Do **NOT** call `chorus_pm_validate_elaboration`. The idea skill's caller now decides:

- If the synthesized round answers cover everything → caller obtains human confirmation, then resolves with `chorus_pm_validate_elaboration`.
- If gaps remain → caller opens a structured Round 2 with `chorus_pm_start_elaboration`.

The depth of any follow-up round is the caller's call, not yours.

---

## Synthesis spec

Each material decision becomes exactly one `ElaborationQuestion` with these fields:

| Field | Source |
|---|---|
| `text` | The decision question, phrased neutrally. Example: "Which depth-model placement?" |
| `category` | `functional`, `non_functional`, `business_context`, `technical_context`, `user_scenario`, or `scope` — derived from the topic. |
| `options` | All directions that were considered, length 2-5. Collapse near-duplicates into one option. |
| `selectedOptionId` | The id of the option the user approved. |
| `customText` | A 1-3 sentence rationale capturing the constraint or tradeoff that drove the choice. Not a transcript dump. |

Rules:

- A `customText` longer than ~3 sentences is a sign you are summarizing transcript instead of capturing rationale. Cut.
- An `options` array of length 2 with binary "yes / no" framing is a sign you pre-narrowed alternatives. Re-examine — there are usually at least three meaningfully different paths, even if two of them get rejected quickly.
- Skip "decisions" that were never genuinely contested. If the user agreed instantly to the only proposal, that is information for the idea content, not a decision-point Q&A.

---

## Anti-patterns

Do not do any of the following. Each has a specific failure mode that this skill must prevent:

- **Single-summary `customText` blob.** Compressing the entire conversation into one ElaborationQuestion with a long markdown summary in `customText`. The schema is multi-question for a reason — preserve the decision granularity.
- **Transcript-as-comment.** Posting the raw conversation log as a comment on the idea (or anywhere). The synthesized round IS the artifact. Raw transcripts pollute the audit trail with noise.
- **File writes.** Writing any markdown, design doc, plan, or scratch file to disk. There is no design doc in this flow. This is a deliberate divergence from the upstream `superpowers/brainstorming` cadence.
- **`validate_elaboration` calls.** Closing the elaboration phase from this skill. The lifecycle decision belongs to the idea skill. Calling it here strips the caller of its scheduler role.
- **`writing-plans` / design-doc handoff.** Invoking any skill that produces an implementation plan or design document. The Chorus pipeline already has Proposal → Document Drafts → Task Drafts for that — the brainstorm output feeds them through ElaborationRound, not through external doc skills.
- **Length-2 binary "yes / no" framings.** Reducing every decision to "do this thing — yes / no". Almost always the genuine alternatives are 3+ approaches with meaningfully different tradeoffs. Length-2 framings often mean the divergent phase ended too early.
- **Asking multiple questions in one prompt.** The cadence is one question per turn during divergence, then one final convergence prompt with 2-3 options. Combining unrelated questions is a sign you are rushing.