From dm-work
Use when the user wants to explore approaches or discuss design before implementation. Explores intent, requirements, and design through collaborative dialogue.
npx claudepluginhub rbergman/dark-matter-marketplace --plugin dm-workThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Turn ideas into fully formed designs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Generates design tokens/docs from CSS/Tailwind/styled-components codebases, audits visual consistency across 10 dimensions, detects AI slop in UI.
Records polished WebM UI demo videos of web apps using Playwright with cursor overlay, natural pacing, and three-phase scripting. Activates for demo, walkthrough, screen recording, or tutorial requests.
Delivers idiomatic Kotlin patterns for null safety, immutability, sealed classes, coroutines, Flows, extensions, DSL builders, and Gradle DSL. Use when writing, reviewing, refactoring, or designing Kotlin code.
Turn ideas into fully formed designs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Process: Understand context → Ask questions one at a time → Explore approaches → Present design incrementally → Validate each section.
Before asking questions:
Rules:
Focus on:
Before exploring approaches, run these four checks on the idea:
| Check | Question | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Can someone explain what this does in one sentence? | They describe internals, not outcomes |
| Timeline | Is the value immediate or does it compound over time? | Neither — value is vague or hypothetical |
| Perception | Can the user see/feel it working? | Value is invisible or requires explanation |
| Discovery | Does the user seek this out, or must they stumble into it? | Must be explained repeatedly to new users |
Any red flags → address them as design constraints in Phase 2, not afterthoughts.
Once you understand the goal:
Example:
I see three approaches:
1. **Component-based** (recommended) - Fits your existing pattern,
easiest to test, but more files.
2. **Inline** - Fewer files, but harder to reuse and test.
3. **Hook-based** - Most flexible, but adds complexity you may not need.
I'd go with #1 because [reasoning]. Thoughts?
Once approach is chosen:
Cover:
Write validated design to:
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
Commit to git.
Ask: "Ready to set up for implementation?"
Then:
dm-work:worktrees to create isolated workspacedm-work:orchestrator patterns for delegation| Principle | Why |
|---|---|
| One question at a time | Don't overwhelm |
| Multiple choice preferred | Easier to answer |
| YAGNI ruthlessly | Remove unnecessary features |
| Explore alternatives | Always 2-3 approaches before settling |
| Incremental validation | Present design in sections |
| Be flexible | Go back when something doesn't fit |
| Don't | Do Instead |
|---|---|
| Jump to implementation | Understand first, design second |
| Ask 5 questions at once | One question per message |
| Present monolithic design | Break into 200-300 word sections |
| Skip trade-off discussion | Always propose 2-3 approaches |
| Assume you understand | Validate understanding with user |
1. Check project context (files, docs, commits)
2. Ask questions one at a time (prefer multiple choice)
3. Propose 2-3 approaches with trade-offs
4. Present design in sections, validate each
5. Write to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
6. If implementing: worktree → beads → orchestrate