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 agentmods add skills/humanbean17/jrag/brainstormingnpx skills add HumanBean17/jrag --skill brainstorminggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HumanBean17/jragWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.02892 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01446 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00578 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00289 |
Grade A, and why
brainstorming 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 3d 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 — 190 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Start by reading the context the user gave you, then study the codebase, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
Core Principles
These principles override the rest of this skill when in conflict.
- Context before code. Before exploring the codebase, carefully read the context the user provided - the task description, linked tickets, attached files, references, and any constraints stated in the message. Only then explore the code. The design must reflect what the user actually asked for, not what you assume.
- Specs carry design, not code. The spec describes WHAT to build and WHY, with references to classes, methods, fields, configurations, tables, DTOs, and contracts (JSON Schema, schemas, config). It MUST NOT contain implementation logic - method bodies, algorithms, or actual code. Writing code is the job of the agent that implements the plan. Your job here is to design.
Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
Every project goes through this process — a todo list, a single-function utility, a config change, all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval. What's optional is the written spec (see below) — the design conversation itself never is.
Checklist
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
- Read the provided context - the task description, linked tickets, attachments, and any constraints the user stated. Parse intent and boundaries before touching the codebase
- Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
- Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
- Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
- Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
- Ask whether to write a spec — once the design is approved, mark all previous tasks (1-5) as completed, then ask the user. The design conversation is mandatory; the spec document is not. For trivial changes the approved design alone may be enough; for anything non-trivial, default to writing one.
- No spec → mark all brainstorming tasks complete, then proceed to implementation (no spec doc, no plan).
- Yes spec → continue to steps 7-11.
- Template fit check — if a project-level
docs/superpowers/spec-template.mdexists, map the approved design onto it; surface every mismatch in one message and ask before deviating. Skip if absent. See Custom Spec Template. - Write design doc — save to
docs/superpowers/specs/active/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.mdand commit - Spec self-review — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
- User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
- Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 190 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 0d3bd709129d
brainstorming is a skill published in the GitHub repository HumanBean17/jrag (9 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,892 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. 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
develop
Run /develop to build a feature, UI or backend, from an approved design, a page, component, API, service, or data slice. If something load bearing is undecided and no spec records it, it stops and routes you to /architect; otherwise it reads the spec plus AGENTS.md, builds, and advances the scope.
sync
Run /sync as the last step after a change is complete, around merge, to keep durable knowledge current. Updates root and nested AGENTS.md, reconciles the scope from repo evidence, and flags specs the change made stale. Surgical edits only: it adds lines, and rewrites single lines it owns. Never a whole section, never…
test
Run /test to write a test suite for code you just built or changed, after implementing a feature, route, or fix. Targets uncommitted changes automatically, reads test preferences.json for your framework (asks and saves it if absent), and picks the right strategy per file: happy path, edge cases, error states…
document
Run /document pr | changelog | release-note | postmortem (or let it ask) to write the human facing prose about a change. Drafts from the real commits and diff, writing to the right place. Does not write code, tests, or specs.
debug
Run /debug to find and fix a bug's root cause: a test failing for an unclear reason, /check verify finding a failure, or behavior being wrong. Runs a reproduce, localize, hypothesize, test, fix, verify loop, makes the minimal fix, and hands a regression test to /test. No features, no extra refactors.
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…