activememory/ctx/ctx-brainstorm

Transform raw ideas into clear, validated designs through structured dialogue before any implementation begins.

Before Brainstorming

1. Check if design is needed: is the change complex enough

to warrant a design phase, or is the solution already clear?

1. Review prior art: check .context/DECISIONS.md for

related past decisions; do not re-litigate settled choices

1. Identify what exists: read relevant code and docs before

asking questions; do not ask the user things the codebase already answers

When to Use

• Before implementing a new feature
• Before architectural changes
• Before significant behavior modifications
• When an idea is vague and needs shaping

When NOT to Use

• Bug fixes with clear solutions
• Routine maintenance tasks
• When requirements are already well-defined
• Small, isolated changes (just do them)
• When the user explicitly wants to jump straight to code

Usage Examples

/ctx-brainstorm
/ctx-brainstorm (new caching layer for the API)
/ctx-brainstorm (should we split the monolith?)

Operating Mode

Design facilitator, not builder.

• No implementation while brainstorming
• No speculative features
• No silent assumptions
• No skipping ahead

Slow down just enough to get it right.

The Process

1. Understand Current Context

Before asking questions:

• Review project state: files, docs, prior decisions
• Check .context/DECISIONS.md for related past decisions
• Identify what exists vs what is proposed
• Note implicit constraints

Do not design yet.

2. Clarify the Idea

Goal: shared clarity, not speed.

Rules:

• Ask one question per message
• Prefer multiple-choice when possible
• Split complex topics into multiple questions

Focus on:

• Purpose: why does this need to exist?
• Users: who benefits?
• Constraints: what limits apply?
• Success criteria: how do we know it works?
• Non-goals: what is explicitly out of scope?

3. Non-Functional Requirements

Explicitly clarify or propose assumptions for:

• Performance expectations
• Scale (users, data, traffic)
• Security/privacy constraints
• Reliability needs
• Maintenance expectations

If the user is unsure, propose reasonable defaults and mark them as assumptions.

4. Understanding Lock (Gate)

Before proposing any design, pause and provide:

Understanding Summary (5-7 bullets):

• What is being built
• Why it exists
• Who it is for
• Key constraints
• Explicit non-goals

Assumptions: list all explicitly.

Open Questions: list unresolved items.

Then ask:

"Does this accurately reflect your intent? Confirm or

correct before we move to design."

Do NOT proceed until confirmed.

5. Explore Design Approaches

Once understanding is confirmed:

• Propose 2-3 viable approaches
• Lead with your recommended option
• Explain trade-offs: complexity, extensibility, risk,

maintenance

• Apply YAGNI ruthlessly

6. Stress-Test the Chosen Approach

After the user picks an approach, pause for adversarial review before moving to detailed design.

Surface assumptions:

• List assumptions the chosen approach depends on
• Identify implicit dependencies (libraries, infra, team knowledge)

Identify failure modes:

• What would make this approach fail? (edge cases, scale limits,

integration risks, operational complexity)

• What's the worst-case recovery if it does fail?

Steel-man an alternative:

• Name the strongest argument for a different approach
• Be specific: "Approach B avoids X risk" not "there are other options"

Gate question:

"These are the risks I see. Do they change your preference, or

should we proceed with the chosen approach?"

Only move to detailed design after the user confirms. This is one gate, not a debate: if the user says "proceed," proceed.

7. Present the Design

Break into digestible sections. After each, ask:

"Does this look right so far?"

Cover as relevant:

• Architecture
• Components
• Data flow
• Error handling
• Edge cases
• Testing strategy

8. Decision Log

Maintain a running log throughout:

After the Design

Persist to Context

Once validated, persist outputs:

# Record key decisions
ctx decision add "..." \
  --session-id ID --branch BR --commit HASH \
  --context "..." --rationale "..." --consequence "..."

Implementation Handoff

Only after documentation, ask:

"Ready to begin implementation?"

If yes:

• Create explicit implementation plan
• Break into incremental steps
• Proceed one step at a time

Good Example

Understanding Summary:

- Building a cooldown mechanism for ctx agent hooks

- Prevents repetitive context injection on every tool use

- For Claude Code users running ctx in PreToolUse hooks

- Must be session-isolated (two sessions share no state)

- Non-goal: per-tool granularity (cooldown is global)

Assumptions: 10-minute default cooldown is reasonable.

Open Questions: none remaining.

Does this accurately reflect your intent?

Bad Examples

• Jumping to architecture diagrams before asking what the

feature is for

• Asking 5 questions in one message (ask one at a time)
• Proposing a design without the Understanding Lock step
• "Let me implement this real quick" (no implementation

during brainstorm)

Quality Checklist

Exit brainstorming mode only when:

• [ ] Understanding Lock confirmed by the user
• [ ] At least one design approach accepted
• [ ] Stress-test completed (assumptions, failure modes, alternatives)
• [ ] Major assumptions documented explicitly
• [ ] Key risks acknowledged
• [ ] Decision Log complete
• [ ] Decisions persisted to .context/DECISIONS.md

If any criterion is unmet, continue refinement.

Principles

• Think step-by-step before proposing anything: reason

through the problem space before jumping to solutions

• One question at a time
• Assumptions must be explicit
• Explore alternatives before committing
• Validate incrementally
• Clarity over cleverness
• Be willing to go back
• YAGNI ruthlessly