agents in

skills/brainstorming/ideation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Ideation
+
+## Purpose
+
+Generate strong options quickly without locking too early onto the first plausible idea.
+
+## When to use
+
+- The user wants multiple concepts, approaches, or product directions
+- Requirements are early and the solution space is still wide
+- A team needs creative alternatives before choosing a path
+- You want to escape local maxima in product or technical thinking
+
+## Inputs to gather
+
+- Goal, audience, constraints, and success criteria
+- What is already known, tried, or ruled out
+- Time, complexity, and implementation constraints
+- The desired balance of novelty versus practicality
+
+## How to work
+
+- Produce several meaningfully different options, not minor variations of one idea.
+- Cover a range from safer to bolder approaches when useful.
+- Make tradeoffs explicit so ideas are easy to compare.
+- Keep ideas concrete enough that someone can imagine implementation or execution.
+- Narrow only after the option space is genuinely explored.
+
+## Output expectations
+
+- Distinct options with concise descriptions
+- Tradeoffs, strengths, and risks for each option
+- A recommended direction when appropriate
+
+## Quality checklist
+
+- Options are genuinely different in mechanism or strategy.
+- Ideas respect the stated constraints.
+- Tradeoffs are visible rather than implied.
+- Recommendations, if given, follow from the comparison.
+
+## Handoff notes
+
+- Note whether the ideas are exploratory, implementation-ready, or need structured narrowing next.
+- Pair with structured brainstorming when the next step is selecting and shaping one path.

skills/brainstorming/roadmap-opportunity-prioritization.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Roadmap and Opportunity Prioritization
+
+## Purpose
+
+Choose what to do next by comparing opportunities, maintenance work, and strategic bets against explicit decision criteria.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Too many plausible initiatives compete for limited time
+- Feature work and maintenance work need to be balanced
+- A team needs a more defensible roadmap discussion
+- Promising ideas need sequencing rather than more generation
+
+## Inputs to gather
+
+- Candidate initiatives or workstreams
+- Decision criteria such as impact, urgency, effort, risk reduction, or strategic fit
+- Dependencies, timing constraints, and team capacity
+- Evidence for expected payoff or avoided risk
+
+## How to work
+
+- Make prioritization criteria explicit before ranking work.
+- Compare user value, strategic value, and risk reduction together.
+- Treat maintenance and enabling work as first-class opportunities when they materially improve future delivery.
+- Distinguish what is urgent, what is high leverage, and what is merely attractive.
+- Produce a sequence that a team can actually act on.
+
+## Output expectations
+
+- Prioritized list or roadmap recommendation
+- Clear rationale for order and tradeoffs
+- Notes on what to defer, revisit, or validate next
+
+## Quality checklist
+
+- Priorities reflect stated criteria rather than intuition alone.
+- Sequencing respects dependencies and capacity.
+- Lower-priority items are deferred for a reason, not forgotten accidentally.
+- Maintenance work is evaluated on outcomes, not optics.
+
+## Handoff notes
+
+- Note what new evidence would most change the ranking.
+- Pair with maintenance and technical debt planning or structured brainstorming when the decision needs deeper shaping.

skills/brainstorming/structured-brainstorming.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Structured Brainstorming
+
+## Purpose
+
+Turn rough ideas into decision-ready options by comparing them systematically, narrowing intelligently, and shaping the chosen direction into actionable next steps.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Many ideas exist and the team needs a clear recommendation
+- A promising concept needs scoping before implementation
+- Tradeoffs need to be surfaced explicitly
+- The next step is choosing, sequencing, or planning rather than generating more ideas
+
+## Inputs to gather
+
+- Candidate ideas or possible approaches
+- Decision criteria such as impact, effort, risk, speed, or strategic fit
+- Constraints on time, team, technical feasibility, or audience needs
+- Any assumptions that materially change the choice
+
+## How to work
+
+- Define the decision criteria before ranking options.
+- Compare options on the criteria that actually matter for the request.
+- Remove weak options quickly once the reason is clear.
+- Turn the selected direction into a scoped set of next steps or a buildable outline.
+- Keep the analysis proportional; do not over-formalize simple decisions.
+
+## Output expectations
+
+- Clear comparison of options
+- Recommended direction with reasoning
+- A scoped next-step plan or action outline
+
+## Quality checklist
+
+- Decision criteria are explicit and relevant.
+- The recommendation follows from the comparison rather than preference alone.
+- The chosen path is actionable, not just inspirational.
+- Key assumptions are visible.
+
+## Handoff notes
+
+- Note what would most likely change the recommendation.
+- Pair with feature implementation, repo exploration, or messaging skills when moving from choice to execution.