From dev-core
Structured interview → brainstorm | analysis | spec (with promotion). Triggers: "create a spec" | "interview" | "brainstorm" | "write analysis" | "promote to spec" | "let's brainstorm" | "think through this" | "help me brainstorm" | "let's think this through" | "explore ideas".
npx claudepluginhub roxabi/roxabi-plugins --plugin dev-coreThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Let:
Transforms vague ideas into implementation-ready specifications via two-phase structured interviewing. Use for new features, problems, or requirements documentation.
Brainstorms feature requirements through collaborative dialogue, clarifying scope, options, and decisions before generating a right-sized requirements document for planning.
Explores feature ideas and requirements via collaborative dialogue, then generates a right-sized requirements document for planning. Use for vague requests, brainstorming, or scoping ambiguous problems.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Let:
β := Brainstorm | α := Analysis | σ := Spec
τ := document type ∈ {β, α, σ}
A := artifacts/analyses/ | S := artifacts/specs/
AQ := Present decision via protocol: read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/../shared/references/decision-presentation.md
Conduct structured interview → produce one of {β, α, σ}. Supports promoting existing doc to next level.
--promote∃ --promote <path>:
type: brainstorm ∈ frontmatter → β → promote to α.**Promoted from:** [source title](relative-path-to-source)¬--promote → Step 1.
Glob A, S — match topic by issue#, keywords, or slug.
∃ related docs → AQ:
"Found existing documents: {list with paths}. How to proceed?"
¬related → Step 2.
∃ --promote → skip (already determined). Else AQ:
| τ | Purpose | Output Path |
|---|---|---|
| β | Divergent exploration, early-stage ideas | artifacts/analyses/{slug}.mdx |
| α | Structured investigation of topic/problem | artifacts/analyses/{slug}.mdx |
| σ | Technical specification for implementation | artifacts/specs/{issue}-{slug}.mdx |
AQ per phase. Group 2–4 questions/call. Skip questions obvious from context, arguments, or source doc.
α-specific — also capture:
Shape Up terminology: shape = mutually exclusive arch approach (name, trade-offs, rough scope). breadboard = affordance tables (UI elements → handlers → data). slices = demo-able vertical increments.
α-specific depth:
σ-specific depth — probe ambiguity via 9-category taxonomy:
| Category | Example probe |
|---|---|
| Functional Scope | "What exactly happens when X?" |
| Domain & Data Model | "What entities/relationships are involved?" |
| UX | "What does the user see/do at each step?" |
| Non-Functional | "Performance/scale/reliability requirements?" |
| Integrations | "What external systems does this touch?" |
| Edge Cases | "What happens when X fails or is missing?" |
| Constraints | "What technical/time/budget limits apply?" |
| Terminology | "Terms that could mean different things?" |
| Completion Signals | "How do we know this is done?" |
∀ ambiguity: rank by Impact × Uncertainty (H/M/L). H×H → follow-up question. Unresolved → [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: description] (max 3–5/spec). Must resolve before /plan.
Depth by τ: β = Phase 1 + divergent (lighter) | α = Phases 1–3 thorough | σ = all phases, rigorous on edge cases + criteria.
"My understanding before generating:
- Type: {τ}
- Title: {proposed title}
- Key points: {bulleted summary}
Anything to correct or add?"
Write using appropriate template. Rules:
.mdx extension with YAML frontmatter (title, description).artifacts/specs/{issue}-{slug}-spec.mdxartifacts/analyses/{slug}-analysis.mdx (prefix with issue# if ∃).type: brainstorm to frontmatter.< as < in MDX content.Use templates from references/templates.md — Brainstorm, Analysis, Spec.
$ARGUMENTS