cc-dev-template 0.1.55 → 0.1.56

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "cc-dev-template",
-  "version": "0.1.55",
+  "version": "0.1.56",
   "description": "Structured AI-assisted development framework for Claude Code",
   "bin": {
     "cc-dev-template": "./bin/install.js"

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-1-opening.md

@@ -16,6 +16,6 @@ Then explore:
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Move to `references/step-2-ui-ux.md` when:
+Move to `references/step-2-ideation.md` when:
 - The core problem and user goal are clear
 - Success criteria are understood at a high level

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-2-ideation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# Step 2: Ideation
+
+Before designing a solution, explore the solution space. This step prevents premature convergence on the first idea that comes to mind.
+
+## Determine Mode
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to ask:
+
+> "Do you already have a clear approach in mind, or would you like to explore different options first?"
+
+**Options:**
+- **I know my approach** → Skip to `references/step-3-ui-ux.md` (or step-4-deep-dive.md if no UI)
+- **Let's explore options** → Continue with brainstorming below
+
+## Hybrid Brainstorming
+
+Research shows that combining human and AI ideas produces more original solutions than either alone. The key: get human ideas first, before AI suggestions anchor their thinking.
+
+### 1. Collect User Ideas First
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> "Before I suggest anything - what approaches have you been considering? Even rough or half-formed ideas are valuable."
+
+Let them share freely. Don't evaluate yet. The goal is to capture their independent thinking before AI ideas influence it.
+
+### 2. Generate AI Alternatives
+
+Now generate 3-4 different approaches to the same problem. These should:
+- Include options the user didn't mention
+- Vary meaningfully in architecture, complexity, or tradeoffs
+- Not just be variations on the user's ideas
+
+Frame it as: "Let me add some alternatives you might not have considered..."
+
+### 3. Diversity Check
+
+Review all ideas (user's and yours). Ask yourself:
+- Are these actually different, or variations of the same approach?
+- What's the boldest option here?
+- Can any ideas be combined into something better?
+
+If the options feel too similar, push for a more divergent alternative.
+
+### 4. Select or Combine
+
+Present all approaches with tradeoffs. Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> "Looking at these together, which direction feels right? Or should we combine elements from multiple approaches?"
+
+Document the chosen approach and why before proceeding.
+
+## When to Move On
+
+Proceed to `references/step-3-ui-ux.md` when:
+- An approach has been selected (or user chose to skip brainstorming)
+- The rationale for the choice is understood
+
+If the feature has no user interface, skip to `references/step-4-deep-dive.md`.

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/{step-2-ui-ux.md → step-3-ui-ux.md}

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Step 2: UI/UX Design
+# Step 3: UI/UX Design
 
-If the feature has no user interface, skip to `references/step-3-deep-dive.md`.
+If the feature has no user interface, skip to `references/step-4-deep-dive.md`.
 
 ## Determine Design Direction
 
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ Format as simple numbered steps under each flow name.
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Proceed to `references/step-3-deep-dive.md` when:
+Proceed to `references/step-4-deep-dive.md` when:
 - Design direction is agreed upon
 - Wireframes exist for primary screens
 - User has confirmed the layout approach

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/{step-3-deep-dive.md → step-4-deep-dive.md}

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Step 3: Deep Dive
+# Step 4: Deep Dive
 
 Cover all specification areas through conversation. Update `docs/specs/<name>/spec.md` incrementally as information emerges.
 
@@ -86,4 +86,4 @@ Write to `docs/specs/<name>/spec.md` with this structure:
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Move to `references/step-4-research-needs.md` when all areas have been covered and the spec document is substantially complete.
+Move to `references/step-5-research-needs.md` when all areas have been covered and the spec document is substantially complete.

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/{step-4-research-needs.md → step-5-research-needs.md}

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Step 4: Identify Research Needs
+# Step 5: Identify Research Needs
 
 Before finalizing, determine if implementation requires unfamiliar paradigms.
 
@@ -40,11 +40,11 @@ Wait for research to complete before continuing. The research output goes to `do
 
 ## If No Research Needed
 
-State that all paradigms have existing examples in the codebase. Proceed to `references/step-5-verification.md`.
+State that all paradigms have existing examples in the codebase. Proceed to `references/step-6-verification.md`.
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Proceed to `references/step-5-verification.md` when:
+Proceed to `references/step-6-verification.md` when:
 - All new paradigms have been researched, OR
 - User confirmed no research is needed, OR
 - All patterns have existing codebase examples

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/{step-5-verification.md → step-6-verification.md}

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Step 5: Verification Planning
+# Step 6: Verification Planning
 
 Every acceptance criterion needs a specific, executable verification method. The goal: autonomous implementation with zero ambiguity about whether something works.
 
@@ -71,4 +71,4 @@ The standard: if the agent executes the verification and it passes, the feature
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Proceed to `references/step-6-finalize.md` when every acceptance criterion has a verification method and the user agrees each method proves the criterion works.
+Proceed to `references/step-7-finalize.md` when every acceptance criterion has a verification method and the user agrees each method proves the criterion works.

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/{step-6-finalize.md → step-7-finalize.md}

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Step 6: Finalize
+# Step 7: Finalize
 
 Review the spec for completeness and soundness, then hand off.