specweave 1.0.593 → 2.0.3

package/plugins/specweave/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md

@@ -1,563 +1,57 @@
 ---
-description: Multi-perspective ideation with selectable cognitive lenses, persistent idea trees, and native handoff to sw:increment. Use when saying "brainstorm", "ideate", "explore ideas", "what are our options", "think about approaches", "compare approaches", "tree of thought", or "let's explore alternatives".
-version: 1.0.0
-argument-hint: "<topic> [--depth quick|standard|deep] [--lens default|six-hats|scamper|triz|adjacent] [--resume] [--criteria c1,c2,c3]"
-context: fork
-model: opus
----
-
-# sw:brainstorm — Multi-Perspective Ideation
-
-## Project Overrides
-
-<!-- Skill memories loaded automatically -->
-
-## Persona
-
-Expert ideation facilitator. Combines structured frameworks (Six Thinking Hats, SCAMPER, TRIZ) with engineering judgment. Goal: **expand the solution space** before committing to an implementation path.
-
-**Principles:** Diverge before converging | Every approach gets fair hearing | Tables over essays | Feeds into `sw:increment`, never replaces it
-
----
-
-## STEP 0: State Registration (MANDATORY)
-
-Before any ideation work, register the brainstorm session:
-
-```bash
-mkdir -p .specweave/docs/brainstorms
-mkdir -p .specweave/state
-
-TIMESTAMP=$(date +%Y-%m-%d)
-TOPIC_SLUG=$(echo "TOPIC" | tr ' ' '-' | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | sed 's/[^a-z0-9-]//g' | head -c 40)
-STATE_FILE=".specweave/state/brainstorm-${TIMESTAMP}-${TOPIC_SLUG}.json"
-```
-
-Write initial state:
-```json
-{
-  "topic": "<topic>",
-  "depth": "<quick|standard|deep>",
-  "lenses": [],
-  "startedAt": "<ISO-8601>",
-  "phase": "frame",
-  "approaches": [],
-  "selectedApproach": null,
-  "handedOffTo": null
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Process Flow
-
-Follow this graph. Each node is a phase. Edges are conditional on depth mode.
-
-```dot
-digraph brainstorm {
-  rankdir=TB;
-  node [shape=box, style="rounded"];
-
-  start [label="START\nsw:brainstorm <topic>"];
-  resume_check [label="RESUME CHECK\n--resume flag?"];
-  step0 [label="STEP 0\nState Registration"];
-  parse [label="PARSE ARGS\n--depth, --lens, --criteria"];
-  resume_load [label="LOAD STATE\nRead previous session\nResume from last phase"];
-
-  frame [label="PHASE 1: FRAME\nProblem statement\nStarbursting (5W1H)\n1-2 questions"];
-
-  lens_select [label="LENS SELECTION\nAskUserQuestion\n(deep: multi-select)"];
-  diverge [label="PHASE 2: DIVERGE\nGenerate approaches\nvia selected lens"];
-
-  evaluate [label="PHASE 3: EVALUATE\nComparison matrix\n(default or custom criteria)\nRecommendation"];
-
-  deepen [label="PHASE 4: DEEPEN\nAbstraction laddering\nAnalogies + Pre-mortem"];
-
-  output [label="PHASE 5: OUTPUT\nSave brainstorm doc\nOffer handoff"];
-
-  done [label="DONE"];
-
-  start -> resume_check;
-  resume_check -> step0 [label="new session"];
-  resume_check -> resume_load [label="--resume"];
-  resume_load -> frame [label="phase was: frame"];
-  resume_load -> lens_select [label="phase was: diverge"];
-  resume_load -> evaluate [label="phase was: evaluate"];
-  resume_load -> output [label="phase was: complete\n(explore abandoned branches)"];
-  step0 -> parse;
-  parse -> frame;
-
-  frame -> evaluate [label="quick\n(3 inline approaches)"];
-  frame -> lens_select [label="standard / deep"];
-
-  lens_select -> diverge;
-  diverge -> evaluate;
-
-  evaluate -> output [label="quick / standard"];
-  evaluate -> deepen [label="deep"];
-  evaluate -> lens_select [label="user picks:\nrun more lenses"];
-
-  deepen -> output;
-
-  output -> done [label="user declines handoff"];
-  output -> done [label="user accepts → invoke sw:increment"];
-}
-```
-
-**Phase gating rules:**
-- **Quick**: Frame → (3 inline approaches) → Evaluate → Output
-- **Standard**: Frame → Lens Select → Diverge → Evaluate → Output
-- **Deep**: Frame → Lens Select → Diverge → Evaluate → Deepen → Output
-
----
-
-## Argument Parsing
-
-Parse the user's input for:
-
-| Arg | Default | Values |
-|-----|---------|--------|
-| `--depth` | `standard` | `quick`, `standard`, `deep` |
-| `--lens` | `default` | `default`, `six-hats`, `scamper`, `triz`, `adjacent` |
-| `--resume` | `false` | Flag — resume a previous brainstorm session |
-| `--criteria` | (default set) | Comma-separated custom evaluation criteria |
-
-Everything else is the **topic** (the problem statement to brainstorm about).
-
-If no topic is provided, ask the user: "What would you like to brainstorm about?"
-
-### Resume Mode (`--resume`)
-
-When `--resume`: find most recent state file (`ls -t .specweave/state/brainstorm-*-${TOPIC_SLUG}*.json | head -1`), read it, resume from last completed phase. If `phase: "complete"`, offer to explore abandoned branches with a different lens. Enables iterative brainstorming: quick first, then `--resume --depth deep`.
-
-### Custom Evaluation Criteria (`--criteria`)
-
-Override defaults: `sw:brainstorm "topic" --criteria "perf,cost,complexity,risk"`. Preset sets auto-detected:
-- **Engineering** (default): Complexity, Time, Risk, Extensibility, Alignment
-- **Marketing/Product**: Brand Fit, Audience Reach, Cost, Differentiation, Time-to-Market
-- **Infrastructure**: Performance, Reliability, Cost, Operational Complexity, Scalability
-- **Business**: Revenue Impact, Cost, Time-to-Value, Strategic Alignment, Risk
-
----
-
-## Phase 1: Frame
-
-**Token budget: ~1200 tokens max** (raised 3× in SpecWeave 1.1.0; override via `quality.tokenBudgets.frame`).
-
-### 1a. Restate the Problem
-
-Restate the user's topic as a clear, one-sentence problem statement. If the topic is vague, sharpen it.
-
-### 1b. Starbursting (5W1H)
-
-Generate answers for each dimension:
-
-| Dimension | Question |
-|-----------|----------|
-| **Who** | Who is affected? Who benefits? Who decides? |
-| **What** | What exactly needs to happen? What exists today? |
-| **When** | When is this needed? Time constraints? Deadlines? |
-| **Where** | Where in the system/product/codebase does this live? |
-| **Why** | Why is this needed now? What pain does it solve? |
-| **How** | How might we approach this? (high-level only) |
-
-### 1c. Clarifying Questions
-
-Ask **1-2 targeted questions** using `AskUserQuestion` to resolve the biggest unknowns. Prefer structured choices over open-ended questions.
-
-### 1d. Quick Mode Shortcut
-
-If `--depth quick`: generate 3 inline approaches immediately (no lens selection) and skip to Phase 3 (Evaluate).
-
-Format each approach as:
-```
-### Approach [A/B/C]: [Name]
-**Summary**: [2-3 sentences]
-**Key trade-off**: [one sentence]
-```
-
-Update state: `"phase": "evaluate"`.
-
----
-
-## Phase 2: Diverge
-
-**Token budget: ~1800 tokens per approach** (max ~10800 for 6 approaches; raised 3× in SpecWeave 1.1.0; override via `quality.tokenBudgets.diverge`).
-
-### 2a. Lens Selection
-
-**Standard mode**: Use the `--lens` argument or default to the `default` lens. Single lens, single thread.
-
-**Deep mode**: Ask the user which lenses to apply via `AskUserQuestion` with `multiSelect: true`:
-
-```
-Which cognitive lenses should we apply?
-
-Options:
-- Default (parallel independent generation) (Recommended)
-- Six Thinking Hats (6 perspectives: facts, feelings, caution, optimism, creativity, process)
-- SCAMPER (7 transformations: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, repurpose, eliminate, reverse)
-- TRIZ / Constraint Inversion (negate core assumptions)
-- Adjacent Possible (what recently became feasible)
-```
-
-### 2b. Approach Generation
-
-**Standard mode (single thread)**: Generate 4-6 approaches using the selected lens inline.
-
-**Deep mode (parallel subagents)**: Dispatch each lens facet as a separate `Agent()` call:
-
-```
-Agent({
-  description: "[lens] [facet] perspective",
-  prompt: "You are generating ONE approach to: [problem statement].
-Your perspective: [facet description].
-Context: [frame summary].
-
-Generate exactly ONE approach in this format:
-## Approach: [Name]
-**Perspective**: [facet name]
-**Summary**: [2-3 sentences]
-**Key steps**: [3-5 numbered steps]
-**Strengths**: [2-3 bullets]
-**Risks**: [2-3 bullets]
-**Effort**: [Low/Medium/High]
-
-Stay under 150 lines. Be concrete and specific.",
-  subagent_type: "general-purpose",
-  model: "sonnet"
-})
-```
-
-Collect all subagent results and compile into a unified approaches list.
-
-### 2c. Approach Formatting
-
-Each approach MUST have:
-- **Name** (short, descriptive)
-- **Source** (which lens/facet generated it)
-- **Summary** (2-3 sentences)
-- **Key steps** (3-5 numbered)
-- **Strengths** (2-3 bullets)
-- **Risks** (2-3 bullets)
-- **Effort estimate** (Low/Medium/High)
-
-Update state: `"phase": "evaluate"`, populate `"approaches"` array.
-
----
-
-## Phase 3: Evaluate
-
-**Token budget: ~1500 tokens max** (raised 3× in SpecWeave 1.1.0; override via `quality.tokenBudgets.evaluate`).
-
-### 3a. Comparison Matrix
-
-Build a table scoring each approach on these criteria (1-5 scale):
-
-| Criterion | Description |
-|-----------|-------------|
-| **Complexity** | How hard to implement (1=trivial, 5=very complex) |
-| **Time** | How long to deliver (1=days, 5=months) |
-| **Risk** | What could go wrong (1=safe, 5=high risk) |
-| **Extensibility** | How well it scales/adapts (1=dead end, 5=very extensible) |
-| **Alignment** | How well it fits existing architecture (1=foreign, 5=native) |
-
-```markdown
-| Criterion     | Approach A | Approach B | Approach C | ... |
-|---------------|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:---:|
-| Complexity    |    2/5     |    3/5     |    4/5     |     |
-| Time          |    3/5     |    2/5     |    1/5     |     |
-| Risk          |    4/5     |    3/5     |    4/5     |     |
-| Extensibility |    2/5     |    4/5     |    5/5     |     |
-| Alignment     |    5/5     |    3/5     |    2/5     |     |
-| **Total**     |  **16**    |  **15**    |  **16**    |     |
-```
-
-### 3b. Recommendation
-
-Provide an explicit recommendation:
-- **Selected**: Approach [X] — [Name]
-- **Rationale**: 2-3 sentences explaining why this approach wins
-- **Caveats**: What to watch out for
-
-### 3c. User Confirmation
-
-Use `AskUserQuestion` to confirm or redirect:
-- "Proceed with [recommended approach]" (Recommended)
-- "Explore [approach Y] deeper instead"
-- "Run more lenses on this problem"
-- Other (free text)
-
-If user picks "run more lenses", loop back to Phase 2.
-
-Update state: `"selectedApproach": { ... }`.
-
----
-
-## Phase 4: Deepen (Deep Mode Only)
-
-**Token budget: ~1500 tokens max** (raised 3× in SpecWeave 1.1.0; override via `quality.tokenBudgets.deepen`).
-
-This phase only runs when `--depth deep`.
-
-### 4a. Abstraction Laddering
-
-Analyze the selected approach at three levels:
-
-- **Zoom OUT**: What broader goal does this serve? Are we solving the right problem?
-- **Current level**: The selected approach as stated
-- **Zoom IN**: What are the concrete first 3 implementation steps?
-
-### 4b. Analogical Reasoning
-
-Find 2-3 analogies from different domains:
-- "This is similar to how [domain X] solves [problem Y] using [technique Z]"
-- Focus on distant-field analogies (not obvious comparisons)
-
-### 4c. Hidden Assumptions
-
-List 3-5 implicit assumptions the selected approach makes:
-- For each: "If we inverted this assumption, what would change?"
-- Flag any assumptions that are particularly fragile
-
-### 4d. Pre-Mortem
-
-Imagine the approach has FAILED. What went wrong?
-
-| Failure Mode | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
-|-------------|:----------:|:------:|------------|
-| [failure 1] | Med | High | [action] |
-| [failure 2] | Low | High | [action] |
-| [failure 3] | High | Med | [action] |
-
-Update state: `"phase": "output"`.
-
----
-
-## Phase 5: Output
-
-**Token budget: ~1200 tokens max** (raised 3× in SpecWeave 1.1.0; override via `quality.tokenBudgets.output`).
-
-### 5a. Save Brainstorm Document
-
-Write the brainstorm document to:
-```
-.specweave/docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-{topic-slug}.md
-```
-
-Use the **Output Template** below.
-
-If a file with the same name exists, append `-2`, `-3`, etc.
-
-### 5b. Update State
-
-Update state file:
-```json
-{
-  "phase": "complete",
-  "completedAt": "<ISO-8601>"
-}
-```
-
-### 5c. Offer Handoff
-
-Present the user with options:
-
-```
-Brainstorm complete! Saved to: .specweave/docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-topic.md
-
-Selected approach: [Name]
-
-What would you like to do?
-
-1. Turn this into an increment → sw:increment "[approach summary]"
-   (Passes brainstorm context: problem frame, selected approach, constraints)
-
-2. Brainstorm deeper with different lenses
-   → sw:brainstorm "[topic]" --depth deep --lens [lens]
-
-3. Done for now — revisit later
-```
-
-If user picks option 1, invoke:
-```
-Skill({
-  skill: "sw:increment",
-  args: "Implement [selected approach name]: [summary].
-    BRAINSTORM CONTEXT (from [brainstorm-doc-path]):
-    - Problem: [problem statement]
-    - Selected approach: [name]
-    - Key steps: [steps]
-    - Risks: [risks]
-    - Evaluation score: [score]
-    - Constraints: [discovered constraints]"
-})
-```
-
-Then update state: `"handedOffTo": "[increment-id]"` and add link to brainstorm doc.
-
----
-
-## Lens Definitions
-
-### Lens: Default (Independent Parallel)
-
-Generate 4-6 independent approaches, each with a different strategic orientation:
-
-| # | Orientation | Prompt Focus |
-|---|-------------|-------------|
-| 1 | Conservative | "Build on what exists. Minimal change, maximum reuse." |
-| 2 | Bold | "Rethink from scratch. What's the ideal solution if we had no constraints?" |
-| 3 | Speed | "Optimize for fastest delivery. What's the simplest thing that works?" |
-| 4 | Extensibility | "Optimize for future growth. What won't we regret in 2 years?" |
-| 5 | Lateral | "What would a completely different industry do?" (optional) |
-| 6 | Hybrid | "Combine the best parts of other approaches." (optional) |
-
-### Lens: Six Thinking Hats
-
-6 perspectives, each generating one approach:
-
-| Hat | Color | Focus |
-|-----|-------|-------|
-| White | Facts | "What do the data and evidence tell us? Generate an approach based purely on facts." |
-| Red | Feelings | "What feels right intuitively? What would users emotionally respond to?" |
-| Black | Caution | "What could go wrong? Generate the most cautious, risk-averse approach." |
-| Yellow | Optimism | "What's the best-case scenario? What opportunity does this unlock?" |
-| Green | Creativity | "Think laterally. What unconventional or novel solution exists?" |
-| Blue | Process | "What's the most structured, methodical way to solve this?" |
-
-**Deep mode dispatch**: 6 parallel `Agent()` calls, one per hat.
-
-### Lens: SCAMPER
-
-7 transformations applied to the current state:
-
-| Letter | Transformation | Prompt |
-|--------|---------------|--------|
-| S | Substitute | "What component, process, or technology could we replace with something better?" |
-| C | Combine | "What existing features, services, or systems could we merge?" |
-| A | Adapt | "What existing solution (ours or others) could we adapt to this problem?" |
-| M | Modify | "What could we magnify, minimize, or change the form of?" |
-| P | Put to other use | "How could we repurpose something that already exists?" |
-| E | Eliminate | "What could we remove entirely to simplify?" |
-| R | Reverse | "What if we did this in the opposite order or from the opposite direction?" |
-
-**Deep mode dispatch**: 7 parallel `Agent()` calls, one per transformation.
-
-### Lens: TRIZ / Inventive Principles + Constraint Inversion
-
-Two-part analysis combining TRIZ inventive principles with assumption negation.
-
-**Part 1: TRIZ Inventive Principles** — Select 5-7 most relevant from the 40 (e.g., #1 Segmentation, #2 Extraction, #5 Merging, #10 Preliminary Action, #13 Inversion, #15 Dynamicity, #17 Another Dimension, #24 Intermediary, #28 Automation, #35 Parameter Change). For each, generate ONE approach applying it to the problem.
-
-**Part 2: Constraint Inversion** — List 3-5 core assumptions → negate each → evaluate which inversions produce viable alternatives → cross-reference with Part 1 → output 3-4 most promising combined approaches.
-
-**Deep mode dispatch**: Part 1 (principles) and Part 2 (inversions) as 2 parallel `Agent()` calls, then synthesize.
-
-### Lens: Adjacent Possible
-
-What recently became feasible? Web-search-enhanced analysis:
-
-1. **Research** — Use `WebSearch` to find new tools, frameworks, cost changes, AI capabilities, regulatory shifts for the topic
-2. **Scan** recent developments: new APIs (12 months), AI cost/quality thresholds, infra cost drops, mature OSS projects
-3. **Generate 4-6 approaches** leveraging newly-possible capabilities
-4. **Ground each** — cite the enabling development: `**Enabled by**: [what changed] | **Previously**: [old approach] | **Now**: [new approach]`
-
-Focus: "What was impossible or impractical 12 months ago but is now viable?"
-
----
-
-## Output Template
-
-Save to `.specweave/docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-{topic-slug}.md`. Structure:
-
-```markdown
-# Brainstorm: [Topic]
-**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Depth**: [mode] | **Lens(es)**: [names] | **Status**: complete
-
-## Problem Frame
-**Statement**: [sentence] | **Who/What/When/Where/Why/How**: [answers] | **Clarifications**: [Q&A]
-
-## Approaches
-### Approach A: [Name]
-**Source**: [lens/facet] | **Summary**: [2-3 sentences] | **Key Steps**: [numbered]
-**Strengths**: [bullets] | **Risks**: [bullets] | **Effort**: [Low/Medium/High]
-
-## Evaluation Matrix
-| Criterion | A | B | C |
-|-----------|:-:|:-:|:-:|
-| Complexity/Time/Risk/Extensibility/Alignment | x/5 | x/5 | x/5 |
-| **Total** | **X** | **X** | **X** |
-
-## Recommendation
-**Selected**: Approach [X] | **Rationale**: [sentences] | **Caveats**: [notes]
-
-## Deep Analysis
-(deep mode only) Abstraction Ladder | Analogies | Hidden Assumptions | Pre-Mortem table
-
-## Idea Tree
-[topic] tree with approaches, variants, and status markers (SELECTED/abandoned)
-
-## Next Steps
-- `sw:increment` | Brainstorm deeper | Park for later
-```
-
-**Notes:** Omit Deep Analysis for quick/standard. Omit Idea Tree variants for quick.
-
----
-
-## Token Budgets (Guidelines)
-
-These are targets, not hard limits. Prefer conciseness, but expand when the problem demands it. Override via `quality.tokenBudgets` in `.specweave/config.json`. Budgets were raised 3× in SpecWeave 1.1.0 to take advantage of Opus 4.7's long-horizon coherence — smaller caps forced premature summarization and missed approach trade-offs.
-
-| Phase | Target | Hard Max | Notes |
-|-------|--------|----------|-------|
-| Frame | ~1200 tokens | 2400 | Problem + 5W1H + questions |
-| Diverge (per approach) | ~1800 tokens | 3000 | Name + summary + steps + trade-offs |
-| Diverge (total) | ~10800 tokens | 18000 | 6 approaches max |
-| Evaluate | ~1500 tokens | 2400 | Matrix + recommendation |
-| Deepen | ~1500 tokens | 3000 | Ladder + analogies + assumptions + pre-mortem |
-| Output | ~1200 tokens | 1800 | Summary + handoff |
-| **Quick total** | ~3900 | ~7800 | Frame + 3 approaches + Evaluate |
-| **Standard total** | ~10500 | ~15600 | Frame + Diverge + Evaluate + Output |
-| **Deep total** | ~16200 | ~27600 | All 5 phases |
-
-**When to exceed targets**: Complex problems with many stakeholders, deeply technical domains requiring precise terminology, or when the user explicitly asks for more detail.
-
----
-
-## When This Skill Activates
-
-**Auto-activation keywords:**
-- brainstorm, brainstorming
-- ideate, ideation
-- explore ideas, explore options, explore alternatives
-- what are our options, compare approaches
-- think about approaches, consider from different angles
-- tree of thought, divergent thinking
-- design thinking, idea generation
-- pros and cons of different approaches
-
-**Routing from CLAUDE.md:**
-- "Just brainstorm first" → routes to `sw:brainstorm` (not an opt-out)
-
-**Phase detection:**
-- Maps to `planning` phase (pre-increment ideation)
-
----
-
-## Validation Checklist
-
-Before completing a brainstorm session, verify:
-
-- [ ] Problem statement is clear and specific
-- [ ] At least 3 approaches were generated
-- [ ] Each approach has: name, summary, steps, strengths, risks, effort
-- [ ] Evaluation matrix includes all approaches with scores
-- [ ] Explicit recommendation with rationale
-- [ ] Brainstorm document saved to `.specweave/docs/brainstorms/`
-- [ ] State file updated to `phase: "complete"`
-- [ ] Handoff offered (user may decline)
+description: Expand the solution space before committing - framed options compared on stated criteria, ending in a pick. Use when saying "brainstorm", "ideate", or "what are our options".
+version: 2.0.0
+argument-hint: "<topic> [--depth quick|standard|deep]"
+---
+
+# Brainstorm
+
+Diverge, then converge, then hand the winner to `sw:increment`. This never replaces
+the spec — it decides *which* thing to spec.
+
+## Depth
+
+| Depth | Options | Output |
+|---|---|---|
+| `quick` (default for a narrow question) | 3 | a table + a pick, in the conversation |
+| `standard` | 4–5 | table + trade-offs + `reports/brainstorm.md` if an increment exists |
+| `deep` | 5–7, incl. one "do nothing" and one contrarian | written doc + rejected alternatives + risks |
+
+## Steps
+
+1. **Frame.** One sentence: the decision to be made, and what would make an answer good.
+   Write down 3–5 **criteria** up front (cost, time-to-ship, blast radius, reversibility,
+   who maintains it). Choosing criteria after seeing the options is how bias sneaks in.
+2. **Diverge.** Generate the options *before* judging any of them. Force variety:
+   - the obvious one (do the thing directly);
+   - the cheap one (what buys 80% for 20%);
+   - the buy-instead-of-build one;
+   - the do-nothing / defer one, with what it costs;
+   - one that inverts an assumption everyone is making.
+   Name each option in 3–6 words.
+3. **Converge.** One table: option × criteria, with a one-line "kills it if" per option.
+   Then a short paragraph per surviving option: how it works, what it costs, what breaks.
+4. **Pick.** State the recommendation, the runner-up, and the one fact that would flip
+   the decision. If the honest answer is "we need data first", say that and name the
+   experiment.
+5. **Hand off.** `sw:increment "<the picked option>"`. Paste the rejected alternatives into
+   the new spec's **Approach** section — that is where they earn their keep.
+
+## Rules
+
+- Never grade an option while still generating options.
+- Every option gets the same amount of scrutiny; do not build a straw man to justify the favourite.
+- Tables and short paragraphs, not essays.
+- Persist the doc only when there is an increment to hold it
+  (`.specweave/increments/<id>/reports/brainstorm.md`); otherwise keep it in the conversation.
+- If the user already knows what they want, skip to `sw:increment` and say why.
+
+## Multi-perspective variant
+
+For a genuinely contested decision, run three lenses over the same option set — advocate
+(strongest case for), critic (how each fails in production), pragmatist (what ships this
+week) — and merge. In Claude Code these can be parallel subagents (`sw:team` in brainstorm
+mode); in other tools, do the three passes in sequence and label them.
 
 ## Resources