@harness-engineering/cli 1.14.0 → 1.16.0

package/dist/agents/commands/cursor/harness/harness-brainstorming.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,414 @@
+---
+description: Structured ideation and exploration with harness methodology
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+<!-- Generated by harness generate-slash-commands. Do not edit. -->
+
+# Harness Brainstorming
+
+> Design exploration to spec to plan. No implementation before design approval. Think first, build second.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Starting a new feature or project that requires design decisions
+- When the problem space is ambiguous and needs exploration before planning
+- When multiple implementation approaches exist and tradeoffs must be weighed
+- When `on_new_feature` trigger fires and the scope is non-trivial
+- NOT when the implementation path is already clear (go straight to harness-planning)
+- NOT when fixing a bug with an obvious root cause (use harness-debugging or harness-tdd)
+- NOT when the task is a simple refactor with no design decisions (use harness-refactoring)
+
+## Process
+
+### Iron Law
+
+**No implementation may begin before the design is approved by the human.**
+
+If you find yourself writing production code, tests, or scaffolding before the human has signed off on the design, STOP. You are in the wrong skill. Brainstorming produces a spec document, not code.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 1: EXPLORE — Gather Context
+
+1. **Read the existing codebase.** Understand the current architecture, constraints, and conventions. Check AGENTS.md, existing specs in `docs/`, and relevant source files.
+
+2. **Identify the problem boundary.** What exactly needs to be solved? What is explicitly out of scope? Write down both.
+
+3. **Check for prior art.** Has this problem been partially solved elsewhere in the codebase? Are there existing patterns that should be followed or deliberately broken?
+
+4. **Assess scope.** If the problem spans more than 3 major subsystems or would take more than 2 weeks to implement, it is too large. Decompose into sub-projects first, then brainstorm each one separately.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 2: EVALUATE — Ask Questions and Narrow
+
+1. **Ask ONE question at a time.** Do not dump a list of 10 questions on the human. Ask the most important question first. Wait for the answer. Let the answer inform the next question.
+
+   When asking a clarifying question, use `emit_interaction` with `type: 'question'`:
+
+   ```json
+   emit_interaction({
+     path: "<project-root>",
+     type: "question",
+     question: {
+       text: "For auth, which approach should we use?",
+       options: [
+         {
+           label: "A) Existing JWT middleware",
+           pros: ["Already in codebase", "Team has experience"],
+           cons: ["No refresh token support", "Session-only"],
+           risk: "low",
+           effort: "low"
+         },
+         {
+           label: "B) OAuth2 via provider X",
+           pros: ["Industry standard", "Refresh tokens built-in"],
+           cons: ["New dependency", "Learning curve"],
+           risk: "medium",
+           effort: "medium"
+         },
+         {
+           label: "C) External auth service",
+           pros: ["Zero maintenance", "Enterprise features included"],
+           cons: ["Vendor lock-in", "Monthly cost", "Latency"],
+           risk: "medium",
+           effort: "low"
+         }
+       ],
+       recommendation: {
+         optionIndex: 0,
+         reason: "Sufficient for current requirements. OAuth2 adds complexity we don't need yet.",
+         confidence: "high"
+       }
+     }
+   })
+   ```
+
+   This records the question in state and returns a formatted prompt to present.
+
+2. **Prefer multiple choice.** Instead of "How should we handle auth?", ask "For auth, should we: (A) use existing JWT middleware, (B) add OAuth2 via provider X, or (C) delegate to an external service?" Give 2-4 concrete options with brief tradeoff notes.
+
+3. **When the human answers, acknowledge and build on it.** Do not re-ask clarified points. Track decisions as they accumulate.
+
+4. **Apply YAGNI ruthlessly.** For every proposed capability, ask: "Do we need this for the stated goal, or is this speculative?" If speculative, cut it. If the human insists, note it as a future consideration, not a requirement.
+
+5. **Continue until you have enough clarity** to propose concrete approaches. Typically 3-7 questions are sufficient. If you need more than 10, the scope is too large — decompose.
+
+### Context Keywords
+
+During Phase 2, extract 5-10 domain keywords that capture the problem space. Include them in the spec frontmatter:
+
+```
+**Keywords:** auth, middleware, session-tokens, refresh-flow, OAuth2
+```
+
+These keywords flow into the `handoff.json` `contextKeywords` field when the spec is handed off to planning. Select keywords that would help a fresh agent — one that has never seen this conversation — understand the domain area quickly.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 3: PRIORITIZE — Propose Approaches
+
+1. **Propose 2-3 concrete approaches.** Not 1 (no choice), not 5 (decision paralysis). Each approach must include:
+   - **Summary:** One sentence describing the approach
+   - **How it works:** Key technical decisions (what data structures, what APIs, what patterns)
+   - **Tradeoffs:** What you gain, what you lose, what gets harder later
+   - **Estimated complexity:** Low / Medium / High, with a brief justification
+   - **Risk:** What could go wrong, what assumptions might be wrong
+
+   When presenting approach tradeoffs, use conventional markdown patterns:
+
+   ```
+   **[IMPORTANT]** Approach 1 trades simplicity for extensibility
+   **[SUGGESTION]** Consider Approach 2 if real-time requirements emerge later
+   ```
+
+2. **Be honest about tradeoffs.** Do not soft-sell a preferred approach. If approach A is simpler but less extensible, say so plainly.
+
+3. **State your recommendation** and why, but defer to the human's decision.
+
+4. **Wait for the human to choose.** Do not proceed until an approach is selected.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 4: VALIDATE — Write the Spec
+
+1. **Present the design section by section.** Do not dump the entire spec at once. Present each major section, get feedback, and incorporate it before moving to the next:
+   - Overview and goals
+   - Decisions made (with rationale from the brainstorming conversation)
+   - Technical design (data structures, APIs, file layout)
+   - Success criteria (observable, testable outcomes)
+   - Implementation order (high-level phases, not detailed tasks — that is harness-planning's job)
+
+2. **Run soundness review.** After all sections are reviewed and the spec is drafted, invoke `harness-soundness-review --mode spec` against the draft. Do not proceed to write the spec to `docs/` until the soundness review converges with no remaining issues.
+
+3. **Write the spec to `docs/`.** Write proposals to `docs/changes/<feature>/proposal.md`. This keeps change proposals organized by feature in a consistent location.
+
+4. **Run `harness validate`** to verify the spec file is properly placed and the project remains healthy.
+
+5. **Request sign-off via `emit_interaction`:**
+
+   ```json
+   emit_interaction({
+     path: "<project-root>",
+     type: "confirmation",
+     confirmation: {
+       text: "Approve spec at <file-path>?",
+       context: "<one-paragraph summary of the design>",
+       impact: "Spec approval unlocks implementation planning. No code changes yet.",
+       risk: "low"
+     }
+   })
+   ```
+
+   The human must explicitly approve before this skill is complete.
+
+6. **Add feature to roadmap.** If `docs/roadmap.md` exists:
+   - Derive the feature name from the spec title (the H1 heading of the proposal).
+   - Call `manage_roadmap` with action `add`, `status: "planned"`, `milestone: "Current Work"`, and the spec path. Include a one-line summary from the spec overview.
+   - If the feature already exists in the roadmap (duplicate name), skip silently — the feature was likely added manually or by a prior brainstorming session.
+   - Log: `"Added '<feature-name>' to roadmap as planned"` (informational, not a prompt).
+   - If `manage_roadmap` is unavailable, fall back to direct file manipulation using `parseRoadmap`/`serializeRoadmap` from core to read, modify, and write `docs/roadmap.md`.
+   - If no roadmap exists, skip this step silently.
+
+7. **Write handoff and suggest transition.** After the human approves the spec:
+
+   Write `.harness/handoff.json`:
+
+   ```json
+   {
+     "fromSkill": "harness-brainstorming",
+     "phase": "VALIDATE",
+     "summary": "<1-sentence spec summary>",
+     "artifacts": ["<spec file path>"],
+     "decisions": [{ "what": "<decision>", "why": "<rationale>" }],
+     "contextKeywords": ["<domain keywords from Phase 2>"]
+   }
+   ```
+
+   Call `emit_interaction`:
+
+   ```json
+   {
+     "type": "transition",
+     "transition": {
+       "completedPhase": "brainstorming",
+       "suggestedNext": "planning",
+       "reason": "Spec approved and written to docs/",
+       "artifacts": ["<spec file path>"],
+       "requiresConfirmation": true,
+       "summary": "<Spec title> -- <key design choices>. <N> success criteria, <N> implementation phases.",
+       "qualityGate": {
+         "checks": [
+           {
+             "name": "spec-written",
+             "passed": true,
+             "detail": "Written to docs/changes/<feature>/proposal.md"
+           },
+           { "name": "harness-validate", "passed": true },
+           { "name": "human-approved", "passed": true }
+         ],
+         "allPassed": true
+       }
+     }
+   }
+   ```
+
+   If the user confirms: invoke harness-planning with the spec path.
+   If the user declines: stop. The handoff is written for future invocation.
+
+---
+
+### Scope Check
+
+At any point during brainstorming, if the design reveals that the project is larger than initially expected:
+
+1. **Identify natural decomposition boundaries.** Where can the project be split into independently deliverable pieces?
+2. **Propose sub-projects.** Each sub-project should be brainstormable and plannable on its own.
+3. **Get approval for the decomposition** before continuing to brainstorm any individual sub-project.
+
+## Party Mode
+
+When activated with `--party`, add a multi-perspective evaluation step after proposing approaches.
+
+### Perspective Selection
+
+Select 2-3 perspectives based on design topic:
+
+| Topic          | Perspectives                                 |
+| -------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
+| API / backend  | Backend Developer, API Consumer, Operations  |
+| UI / frontend  | Developer, Designer, End User                |
+| Infrastructure | Architect, SRE, Developer                    |
+| Data model     | Backend Developer, Data Consumer, Migration  |
+| Library / SDK  | Library Author, Library Consumer, Maintainer |
+| Cross-cutting  | Architect, Security, Developer               |
+| Default        | Architect, Developer, User/Consumer          |
+
+### Evaluation Process
+
+For each proposed approach, evaluate from each perspective:
+
+```
+### Approach N: [name]
+
+**[Perspective 1] perspective:**
+[Assessment]. Concern: [specific concern or "None"].
+
+**[Perspective 2] perspective:**
+[Assessment]. Concern: [specific concern or "None"].
+
+**[Perspective 3] perspective:**
+[Assessment]. Concern: [specific concern or "None"].
+
+**Synthesis:** [Consensus summary. Address raised concerns. Recommend proceed/revise.]
+```
+
+Converge on a recommendation that addresses all concerns before presenting the design.
+
+## Session State
+
+This skill reads and writes to the following session sections via `manage_state`:
+
+| Section       | Read | Write | Purpose                                                           |
+| ------------- | ---- | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| terminology   | yes  | yes   | Captures domain terms discovered during brainstorming             |
+| decisions     | no   | yes   | Records design decisions made during exploration                  |
+| constraints   | yes  | no    | Reads constraints to scope brainstorming                          |
+| risks         | no   | yes   | Captures risks identified during brainstorming                    |
+| openQuestions | yes  | yes   | Adds new questions, resolves answered ones                        |
+| evidence      | no   | yes   | Cites sources for design recommendations and prior art references |
+
+**When to write:** After each phase transition (EXPLORE -> EVALUATE -> PRIORITIZE -> VALIDATE), append relevant entries to the appropriate sections. This ensures downstream skills (planning, execution) inherit accumulated context without re-discovery.
+
+**When to read:** At the start of Phase 1 (EXPLORE), read `terminology` and `constraints` from the session to inherit context from prior skills or previous brainstorming sessions on the same feature.
+
+## Evidence Requirements
+
+When this skill makes claims about existing code behavior, architecture patterns, or technical tradeoffs, it MUST cite evidence using one of:
+
+1. **File reference:** `file:line` format (e.g., `src/services/auth.ts:42` -- "existing JWT middleware handles token refresh")
+2. **Prior art reference:** `file` format with description (e.g., `src/utils/email.ts` -- "email utility already exists, can be reused for notifications")
+3. **Documentation reference:** `docs/path` format (e.g., `docs/changes/user-auth/proposal.md` -- "prior spec established OAuth2 as the auth standard")
+4. **Session evidence:** Write to the `evidence` session section:
+   ```json
+   manage_state({
+     action: "append_entry",
+     session: "<current-session>",
+     section: "evidence",
+     authorSkill: "harness-brainstorming",
+     content: "src/services/auth.ts:42 -- existing JWT middleware supports refresh tokens"
+   })
+   ```
+
+**When to cite:** During Phase 1 (EXPLORE) when referencing existing code or patterns. During Phase 3 (PRIORITIZE) when justifying tradeoffs with concrete code references. During Phase 4 (VALIDATE) when spec references existing implementation details.
+
+**Uncited claims:** Technical assertions without citations MUST be prefixed with `[UNVERIFIED]`. Example: `[UNVERIFIED] The current auth middleware does not support refresh tokens`. Uncited claims are flagged during review (Wave 2.2).
+
+## Harness Integration
+
+- **`harness validate`** — Run after writing the spec to `docs/`. Verifies project health and that the new spec file is properly placed.
+- **`harness check-docs`** — Run to verify the spec does not conflict with existing documentation.
+- **Spec location** — Specs go to `docs/changes/<feature>/proposal.md`. Follow existing naming patterns.
+- **Handoff to harness-planning** — Once the spec is approved, invoke harness-planning to create the implementation plan from the spec.
+- **Roadmap sync** — After spec approval, call `manage_roadmap` with action `add` to register the new feature as `planned` in `docs/roadmap.md`. Skip silently if no roadmap exists. Duplicates are silently ignored.
+- **`emit_interaction`** -- Call at the end of Phase 4 to suggest transitioning to harness-planning. Uses confirmed transition (waits for user approval).
+
+#### Requirement Phrasing
+
+When brainstorming produces requirements or acceptance criteria that will feed into planning, prefer EARS sentence patterns for behavioral requirements. See the EARS Requirement Patterns section in harness-planning for the full template reference. Key patterns:
+
+- **Event-driven:** "When [trigger], the system shall [response]."
+- **Unwanted:** "If [condition], then the system shall not [behavior]."
+
+These patterns make requirements testable and unambiguous. Apply them when the output of brainstorming includes specific behavioral expectations.
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- A spec document exists in `docs/` with all required sections (overview, decisions, technical design, success criteria, implementation order)
+- The human explicitly approved the design before any implementation
+- YAGNI was applied: no speculative features made it into the spec
+- 2-3 approaches were presented with honest tradeoffs before a decision was made
+- Questions were asked one at a time with multiple-choice options where possible
+- `harness validate` passes after the spec is written
+- If scope was too large, it was decomposed into sub-projects with the human's approval
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example: Designing a Notification System
+
+**EXPLORE:**
+
+```
+Read AGENTS.md — project is a TypeScript monorepo with React frontend and Express backend.
+Read existing docs/ — no prior notification specs. Found docs/changes/user-auth/proposal.md as naming example.
+Checked src/services/ — no notification code exists. Found email utility in src/utils/email.ts.
+Scope assessment: single subsystem (notifications), estimated 1 week. Proceed.
+```
+
+**EVALUATE:**
+
+```
+Q1: "For notifications, should we support:
+  (A) Email only (simplest, covers 90% of use cases)
+  (B) Email + in-app (covers real-time needs)
+  (C) Email + in-app + push (full coverage, most complex)?"
+Human: "B — email and in-app."
+
+Q2: "For in-app notifications, should we:
+  (A) Poll from client every 30s (simple, slight delay)
+  (B) WebSocket push (real-time, more infrastructure)?"
+Human: "A — polling is fine for now."
+
+Q3: "Should notifications be stored permanently or expire after 30 days?"
+Human: "Expire after 30 days."
+```
+
+**PRIORITIZE:**
+
+```
+Approach 1: Event-driven with queue
+- Services emit events, notification worker consumes and dispatches
+- Tradeoff: More infrastructure (needs queue), but decoupled and scalable
+- Complexity: Medium
+- Risk: Queue adds operational overhead
+
+Approach 2: Direct service calls
+- Services call NotificationService directly
+- Tradeoff: Simpler, but couples services to notification logic
+- Complexity: Low
+- Risk: Harder to add channels later, synchronous blocking
+
+Recommendation: Approach 2. YAGNI — direct calls are sufficient for email + polling.
+We can migrate to event-driven later if we add push notifications.
+Human: "Agreed, approach 2."
+```
+
+**VALIDATE:**
+
+```
+Wrote docs/changes/notification-system/proposal.md
+Sections: Overview, Decisions, Technical Design, Success Criteria, Implementation Order
+harness validate — passes
+"Spec written to docs/changes/notification-system/proposal.md. Ready for sign-off?"
+Human: "Approved."
+```
+
+## Gates
+
+These are hard stops. Violating any gate means the process has broken down.
+
+- **No implementation before approval.** No production code, no test code, no scaffolding, no "let me just set up the directory structure." The spec must be approved first. If you wrote code, delete it.
+- **No skipping the question phase.** You must ask at least one clarifying question before proposing approaches. If you think you already know the answer, you are making assumptions — validate them.
+- **No single-approach proposals.** Always present at least 2 approaches with tradeoffs. A single approach is a recommendation disguised as a decision — the human has no real choice.
+- **No speculative features.** Every capability in the spec must trace to a stated requirement. "We might need this later" is not a requirement. Cut it.
+- **No section-dump specs.** Present the design section by section with feedback between each. Do not write the entire spec and ask "looks good?"
+
+## Escalation
+
+- **When the human cannot decide between approaches:** Identify the key differentiator. Ask: "The main difference is X. Given your priorities, does X matter more than Y?" If still stuck, suggest building a small spike to compare (but the spike is NOT production code).
+- **When scope keeps growing during brainstorming:** Stop brainstorming. Explicitly say: "The scope has expanded beyond the original problem. Should we (A) decompose into sub-projects, or (B) revisit the original goal to narrow it?" Do not continue accumulating scope.
+- **When the problem domain is unfamiliar:** State what you do not know. Ask the human if they have domain expertise, documentation, or a reference implementation. Do not guess at domain-specific requirements.
+- **When requirements conflict with existing architecture:** Flag the conflict explicitly: "The spec calls for X, but the current architecture assumes Y. Should we (A) change the spec to work within current architecture, or (B) plan an architecture change as a prerequisite?"
+- **When you have asked more than 10 questions without converging:** The problem is too large or too ambiguous. Stop and propose a decomposition or a scoping exercise before continuing.
+