Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add ggemba/squad-mcp --skill brainstormgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ggemba/squad-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/ggemba/squad-mcp/brainstorm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ggemba/squad-mcp/brainstorm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ggemba/squad-mcp/brainstorm.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.03818 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01909 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00764 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00382 |
Grade A, and why
brainstorm scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 348 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Brainstorm
Objective
Help the user think through a problem, decision, or implementation idea by running parallel web research (market patterns, best practices, pitfalls, examples) and gathering specialist agent perspectives, then synthesizing the findings into a structured options matrix with a recommendation. This skill is exploratory — it does not write code, run tests, or modify the repo.
Position in the workflow:
/brainstorm→ decide what to build (this skill)/squad:implement→ implement what was decided/squad:review→ review what was implemented
Inviolable Rules
- No code implementation. This skill produces a brainstorm report. It must not edit files, run scripts, run tests, or modify any user-facing persistent state. The only file this skill ever writes is the journal
.squad/runs.jsonlviarecord_runfor telemetry — gitignored, mode0o600, not user content. Same single-writer pattern as the squad + debug + question skills. - No
git commit,git push, or any state-mutating git command. Read-only git is fine (git log,git status,git difffor context). - Cite sources. Every market claim, best practice, statistic, or "industry uses X" assertion must link to the URL it came from. Unsourced claims are not allowed.
- Multiple options. Always present at least two alternatives with explicit pros/cons. Never single-answer. The user is brainstorming, not asking for a verdict.
- Honest gaps. When research is incomplete or a decision needs more input, surface it explicitly under "Open questions" — do not paper over.
- No AI attribution in any artifact produced. Consistent with the global commit-authorship rule: if the brainstorm output ever gets pasted into a commit, doc, or message, it must not carry
Co-Authored-By: Claude / Anthropic / AI / Generated with [...]lines.
Inputs
The skill takes one required argument (the topic) and optional flags:
| Param | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
<topic> |
required | Free-form text describing the problem, decision, or idea to brainstorm |
--quick / --normal / --deep |
--normal |
--quick (3 web queries, 1 agent), --normal (6 queries, 2-3 agents), --deep (10+ queries, 4 agents + tech-lead). Same vocabulary as /squad:implement and /squad:review. |
--no-web |
off | Skip web research entirely. Agents-only mode. Use when offline or when the topic is purely internal-codebase. |
--focus <domain> |
auto | Force a domain bias: frontend, backend, infra, data, security, business, mobile. Auto-detection scans the topic text for keywords. |
--sources <N> |
5 | Cap on web sources cited per section. Avoids dump of every result. |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 6d ago First seen · 348 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A bd4e7be00721
brainstorm is a skill published in the GitHub repository ggemba/squad-mcp (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,818 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
red-blue-review
An optional adversarial review process for requirement analyses. One agent produces the analysis, while an independent reviewer checks its report, database definitions, alignment records, and requirements for missed issues.
java-best-practices
Java coding best practices. Use when writing or reviewing Java code (17+). Covers modern features, error handling, and patterns.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
sanity-best-practices
Sanity development best practices for schema design, GROQ queries, TypeGen, Visual Editing, images, Portable Text, Studio structure, localization, migrations, Sanity Functions, webhooks, Blueprints, and framework integrations such as Next.js, Nuxt, Astro, Remix, SvelteKit, Angular, Hydrogen, and the App SDK. Use this…
video-perception
Use when the user mentions a video file (.mp4, .mov, .avi, .mkv, .webm), a YouTube URL, asks to watch/analyze/review a video, or references video content in conversation.