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 iliaal/ai-skills --skill brainstorminggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iliaal/ai-skillsWrote 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/iliaal/ai-skills/brainstorming)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/ai-skills/brainstorming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/ai-skills/brainstorming/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/ai-skills/brainstorming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/ai-skills/brainstorming.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 156 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00053 | $0.01013 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00507 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00101 |
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 2d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- ia-brainstorming — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 34 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Brainstorming
Clarify what to build before planning how to implement it.
Scope and interaction
Produce exploration and a design, not implementation. Obtain approval before interactive handoff. Enable headless mode only when the caller explicitly delegates non-interactive execution and its decision scope; disable-model-invocation is selection metadata, not approval. Replace headless confirmations with stated conservative assumptions. Return material decisions without a safe authorized default unresolved. Never label inferred choices user-approved or infer implementation, commit, or publication authority from this skill.
Use the active question mechanism for material questions: AskUserQuestion in Claude Code (load via ToolSearch select:AskUserQuestion when needed), request_user_input in Codex where supported, otherwise chat. Return missing decisions to the parent from an unattended worker.
Process
- Assess and ground. For an existing project, read relevant code, documentation, constraints, and recent commits before questions. Surface contradictions between the request and observed behavior. Skip repository research for abstract topics. Brainstorm ambiguous goals, competing interpretations, unresolved trade-offs, uncertain needs, solution-framed requests, or multiple independent subsystems. If requirements are clear, suggest planning or implementation without forcing dialogue.
- Right-size and decompose. A brainstorm resolved in three messages may need only a summary; sustained architectural work needs a durable design. For multiple independent subsystems, identify boundaries and dependencies, choose build order, then give each sub-project its own design → plan → implementation cycle. Start with the first sub-project.
- Understand and compare. When dialogue or approach selection is needed, read interview-and-approaches.md. Match the user's vocabulary. Normally ask one question across dimensions, or two to three within one dimension; for a substantial initial dump (>200 words), use the reference's bounded batch. Explore purpose, users, constraints, success, edge cases, patterns, and non-goals. Apply deep-interview.md when assumptions, evidence, unfamiliar domains, or combined answers need probing; its integration check applies before interview exit. Stop questioning when clear or told to proceed. Summarize in three to five bullets and confirm in interactive mode.
- Choose an approach. Compare two to three concrete alternatives with descriptions, pros, cons, and best-use conditions. Lead with the recommendation, reference existing patterns, and expose trade-offs. If none is accepted after two rounds, ask for the preferred direction. For a wide design space, use two to three lenses from the approach reference. State the chosen approach's explicit Not Doing list and a validation method for every key assumption.
- Confirm interpreted scope. Before writing after substantive dialogue, read scope-synthesis.md. Separate stated requirements, inferred assumptions, and exclusions internally; present only the reference's concise scoping synthesis. Lightweight work without blocking questions uses announce-mode; Standard/Deep work or any blocking dialogue requires interactive confirmation. Re-present revisions and await confirmation. In headless mode preserve sources and unresolved assumptions without prompts. Clear requirements that skipped dialogue need no synthesis checkpoint.
- Capture and self-review. For a durable artifact, read design-and-handoff.md. Save
docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.mdwith date/topic frontmatter, What We're Building, Why This Approach, Key Decisions and rationale, Open Questions, and Next Steps. Collapse interview history in a details block. Describe each component's purpose, usage, dependencies, and testable boundary. Commit only within caller authority. - Handoff. Preserve settled decisions and their rationale rather than repeatedly challenging them; a cold directive gets one approach challenge. Neither label suppresses concrete defect or infeasibility evidence. Require consistent terminology, concrete criteria, scope traceability, unambiguous decisions, explicit non-goals, assumption validation, and a named source for every produced value. Return failures to approach selection or drafting. Present the design for interactive approval; return caller-delegated decisions and unresolved assumptions in headless mode.
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 2d ago Changed · -202 lines 400281b31bd7
- 11d ago First seen · 236 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 73210349236d
brainstorming is a skill published in the GitHub repository iliaal/ai-skills (41 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,013 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
antv-x6-editor
A skill for creating and troubleshooting interactive diagrams with AntV X6, a JavaScript engine for editors made of connected nodes and lines. It supports diagram types such as flowcharts, dependency graphs, entity-relationship diagrams, and organization charts.
gpt-vis
A chart-generation tool that recommends visual formats for data and produces either chart settings or runnable code. It uses GPT-Vis, a library for rendering data visualisations.
infographic-creator
Create beautiful infographics based on given text content. Use when users request to create infographics.
icon-retrieval
Search icons through HTTP API and retrieve SVG strings with curl.
pneuma-bansho
A board-based way to explain ideas through written Markdown, a simple text-formatting language, with the writing appearing progressively like a live lecture.
review-spd
Findings-first code review workflow for AI coding agents. Use when the user asks to review uncommitted changes, commits in a date range, or a branch compared to the main branch / PR-style diff. Focuses on bugs, regressions, correctness risks, missing tests, security/data-safety issues, and other behavior-changing…