universal-dev-standards 5.7.2 → 5.8.0

package/bundled/skills/brainstorm-assistant/SKILL.md

@@ -10,17 +10,71 @@ argument-hint: "[problem or feature idea | 問題或功能構想]"
 
 > **Language**: English | [繁體中文](../../locales/zh-TW/skills/brainstorm-assistant/SKILL.md)
 
-Structured ideation before specification writing. Transform vague ideas into actionable feature proposals through guided brainstorming.
+Structured ideation before specification writing. Transform vague ideas into actionable feature proposals through guided brainstorming — grounded in cognitive science research.
 
-在撰寫規格前進行結構化發想。透過引導式腦力激盪，將模糊構想轉化為可執行的功能提案。
+在撰寫規格前進行結構化發想。以認知科學研究為基礎，透過引導式腦力激盪，將模糊構想轉化為可執行的功能提案。
+
+> **Implements**: XSPEC-196 brainstorm-assistant v2 — Cognitive Science Upgrade
+
+## Mode Selection | 使用前先選模式
+
+Apply these **objective triggers** before starting. Default is full v2.0 — routing rules are shortcuts to skip phases, not barriers to add.
+
+使用前套用以下**客觀觸發條件**。預設為完整 v2.0，路由規則是跳過階段的快捷鍵，而非額外障礙。
+
+| Condition | Recommended Mode | Command |
+|-----------|-----------------|---------|
+| Problem description < 20 words **or** topic feels vague | Full v2.0 (default) | `/brainstorm [topic]` |
+| Strategic question (career, architecture, business model) | Full v2.0 with rebuttal | `/brainstorm [topic]` |
+| Creative-only (naming, tagline, marketing copy) | Lite — skip rebuttal | `/brainstorm --no-rebuttal [topic]` |
+| Time-constrained or execution-type (write code, fix copy) | Quick mode | `/brainstorm --quick [topic]` |
+| Already have an SDD spec for this topic | Skip pre-flight | `/brainstorm --skip-preflight [topic]` |
+
+> **Rule of thumb:** If you are unsure which row applies, use full v2.0. The cognitive overhead of deciding is higher than just running the full flow.
+>
+> **判斷原則：** 不確定適用哪一行時，直接用完整 v2.0。判斷本身的認知成本高於直接跑完整流程。
 
 ## Workflow | 工作流程
 
 ```
-FRAME ──► DIVERGE ──► CONVERGE ──► OUTPUT
-定義問題     發散思考       收斂評估       輸出提案
+[Mode Selection] ──► PRE-FLIGHT ──► FRAME ──► DIVERGE ──► CONVERGE ──► OUTPUT
+   客觀路由          防止錨定        定義問題    發散思考      反駁收斂      輸出提案
 ```
 
+---
+
+### Phase 0: PRE-FLIGHT | 防止 AI 錨定（新增）
+
+**Why this phase exists:** Research (Nominal Group Technique) shows that seeing
+AI output first anchors your thinking to the AI's training-data centre. Writing
+your own ideas *before* the AI generates anything consistently produces more
+diverse and higher-quality results.
+
+**本階段存在的原因：** Nominal Group Technique 研究顯示，先看到 AI 輸出會將思考錨定在
+AI 的訓練資料中心。在 AI 生成任何內容之前先寫下自己的想法，能持續產出更多樣、更高品質的結果。
+
+**Before the AI generates any content**, the user completes three items:
+
+在 AI 生成任何內容之前，使用者完成三件事：
+
+| Item | Prompt | 說明 |
+|------|--------|------|
+| 1 | One-sentence problem description | 一句話描述問題 |
+| 2 | Three initial ideas (any format, any quality) | 3 個初始想法（任意形式、不限品質） |
+| 3 | "Solution types I do NOT want" (N/A allowed) | 「我最不想要的解法類型」（可填 N/A） |
+
+**After the user submits**, the AI reads all three inputs and proceeds to FRAME.
+The AI's first DIVERGE batch MUST be labelled "Exploring directions you haven't
+mentioned" and MUST NOT duplicate any of the user's three submitted ideas.
+
+**使用者提交後**，AI 讀取全部三項輸入再進入 FRAME。AI 的第一批 DIVERGE 輸出必須標示
+「探索你尚未提及的方向」，且不得重複使用者已提交的任何想法。
+
+**Flag:** `--skip-preflight` bypasses this phase with a one-line warning:
+`⚠ Skipping Pre-flight may cause AI anchoring`
+
+---
+
 ### Phase 1: FRAME | 定義問題
 
 Define the problem space clearly before generating ideas.
@@ -29,16 +83,46 @@ Define the problem space clearly before generating ideas.
 
 | Step | Action | 步驟 |
 |------|--------|------|
-| 1 | Clarify the problem with 5 Whys | 用 5 Whys 釐清問題 |
+| 1 | Clarify the problem with 5 Whys | 用 5 Whys 釐清問題根因 |
 | 2 | Reframe as "How Might We" (HMW) questions | 重構為 HMW 問題 |
-| 3 | Identify stakeholders and constraints | 識別利害關係人與限制 |
-| 4 | Gather context from codebase (if applicable) | 從程式碼庫蒐集脈絡 |
+| 3 | Identify stakeholders and constraints | 識別利害關係人與限制條件 |
+| 4 | Gather context from codebase (if applicable) | 從程式碼庫蒐集脈絡（如適用） |
+
+---
 
 ### Phase 2: DIVERGE | 發散思考
 
-Generate as many ideas as possible without judgment.
+Generate ideas in **two semantic batches**. A minimum of **10 ideas** is
+required before CONVERGE unlocks. The "Enter CONVERGE" option is hidden until
+this gate is met.
+
+分兩個語義批次產生想法。CONVERGE 解鎖前需累積最少 **10 個想法**，達標前「進入 CONVERGE」
+選項不顯示。
+
+#### Batch 1 — Intuition Batch (ideas 1–5) | 直覺批
+
+Generate fast, unfiltered ideas. Label this batch "Intuition Batch — fast,
+unfiltered". Upon completing idea 5, display:
+`✓ Intuition batch complete`
+
+快速、不過濾地產生想法。完成第 5 個後顯示：`✓ 直覺批完成`
+
+#### Batch 2 — Extension Batch (ideas 6–10) | 延伸批
 
-不加評判地盡可能產生多個想法。
+Display before starting: "Extension Batch: ideas must cross the semantic
+boundary of Batch 1". If a proposed idea shares a theme type with any Batch 1
+idea, flag: `⚠ Semantic overlap — try a different direction` (non-blocking).
+
+開始前顯示延伸批提示。若想法主題與第一批重複，顯示警告（非阻擋）。
+
+#### Gate | 門檻
+
+- Below 10 ideas: show `Continue diverging (N/10)`, do not offer CONVERGE
+- At 10+ ideas: unlock CONVERGE; no upper limit on continuing
+
+少於 10 個：顯示「繼續發散（N/10）」；10 個以上：解鎖 CONVERGE，可繼續無上限。
+
+#### Techniques | 技法
 
 | Technique | When to Use | 使用時機 |
 |-----------|-------------|----------|
@@ -46,11 +130,15 @@ Generate as many ideas as possible without judgment.
 | **SCAMPER** | Improving existing features | 改善現有功能 |
 | **Six Thinking Hats** | Need multiple perspectives | 需要多角度思考 |
 
-### Phase 3: CONVERGE | 收斂評估
+---
+
+### Phase 3: CONVERGE | 反駁收斂
 
-Evaluate and prioritize ideas using structured criteria.
+Two sub-steps: scoring, then the **Rebuttal Round**.
 
-使用結構化標準評估與排序想法。
+兩個子步驟：評分，然後進行**反駁輪**。
+
+#### Step 3a: Scoring | 評分
 
 | Criterion | Weight | 評估標準 |
 |-----------|--------|----------|
@@ -59,21 +147,48 @@ Evaluate and prioritize ideas using structured criteria.
 | Effort | 20% | 實作成本 |
 | Alignment | 20% | 目標一致性 |
 
+#### Step 3b: Rebuttal Round | 反駁輪（新增）
+
+**Why this step exists:** Nemeth (1995) showed that groups allowed to debate
+produce more and better ideas than groups following "no-criticism" rules.
+Challenging the top ideas before committing prevents selecting ideas that merely
+*sound* good under positive-only evaluation.
+
+**本步驟存在的原因：** Nemeth (1995) 證明允許辯論的小組比遵守「禁止批評」規則的小組
+產出更多更好的想法。在確定前挑戰最佳想法，能防止選出只是在正向評估下「聽起來不錯」的方案。
+
+For each of the **top 3 scored ideas**, the AI presents **2 specific
+counterarguments** in the format: "This idea will fail in [context] because
+[reason]." Vague concerns ("this might be hard") are not acceptable.
+
+對前三名想法，AI 各提出 **2 個具體反對理由**，格式為：「在 [情境] 下，此想法會失敗，
+因為 [原因]。」模糊的顧慮（「這可能有點困難」）不可接受。
+
+The user **must** respond to each counterargument before the session advances:
+
+使用者必須對每個反對理由給出回應才能繼續：
+
+| Option | Action | 說明 |
+|--------|--------|------|
+| (a) | Accept criticism → provide modified version | 接受批評 → 提供修改版本 |
+| (b) | Disagree → provide reason to retain | 不同意 → 說明保留理由 |
+| (c) | Criticism valid → remove from ranking | 批評成立 → 從排名移除 |
+
+**Flag:** `--no-rebuttal` skips this step; report section marked
+"Rebuttal: skipped".
+
+---
+
 ### Phase 4: OUTPUT | 輸出提案
 
 Produce a Brainstorm Report ready for `/requirement` or `/sdd`.
 
 產生可直接對接 `/requirement` 或 `/sdd` 的腦力激盪報告。
 
-## Technique Quick Reference | 技法速覽
+Each idea that passed the rebuttal round is marked `✓ Passed rebuttal` with a
+one-line summary of the user's response.
 
-| Technique | Purpose | Steps | 用途 |
-|-----------|---------|-------|------|
-| **5 Whys** | Root cause analysis | Ask "Why?" 5 times | 根因分析 |
-| **HMW** | Problem reframing | "How might we [verb] [outcome]?" | 問題重構 |
-| **SCAMPER** | Idea modification | 7 prompts: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other use, Eliminate, Reverse | 創意改造 |
-| **Six Thinking Hats** | Multi-perspective | 6 modes: Facts, Emotions, Risks, Benefits, Creativity, Process | 多角度思考 |
-| **Dot Voting** | Quick prioritization | Each participant gets 3 votes | 快速排序 |
+通過反駁輪的想法標記 `✓ Passed rebuttal` 及使用者回應摘要一行。
 
 ## Output Format | 輸出格式
 
@@ -89,15 +204,15 @@ Produce a Brainstorm Report ready for `/requirement` or `/sdd`.
 3. How might we ...?
 
 ## Ideas Generated
-| # | Idea | Source Technique | Feasibility | Impact | Score |
-|---|------|-----------------|-------------|--------|-------|
-| 1 | ...  | SCAMPER          | 4/5         | 5/5    | 4.3   |
-| 2 | ...  | HMW              | 3/5         | 4/5    | 3.5   |
+| # | Idea | Batch | Source Technique | Feasibility | Impact | Score |
+|---|------|-------|-----------------|-------------|--------|-------|
+| 1 | ...  | B1    | SCAMPER          | 4/5         | 5/5    | 4.3   |
+| 2 | ...  | B2    | HMW              | 3/5         | 4/5    | 3.5   |
 
 ## Top 3 Recommendations
-1. **[Idea Name]** - [Why this is recommended]
-2. **[Idea Name]** - [Why this is recommended]
-3. **[Idea Name]** - [Why this is recommended]
+1. **[Idea Name]** ✓ Passed rebuttal — [Why recommended] — [User rebuttal response summary]
+2. **[Idea Name]** ✓ Passed rebuttal — [Why recommended] — [User rebuttal response summary]
+3. **[Idea Name]** ✓ Passed rebuttal — [Why recommended] — [User rebuttal response summary]
 
 ## Next Steps
 - [ ] Proceed to `/requirement` with top idea
@@ -105,11 +220,49 @@ Produce a Brainstorm Report ready for `/requirement` or `/sdd`.
 - [ ] Need further exploration of idea #N
 ```
 
+## Technique Quick Reference | 技法速覽
+
+| Technique | Purpose | Steps | 用途 |
+|-----------|---------|-------|------|
+| **5 Whys** | Root cause analysis | Ask "Why?" 5 times | 根因分析 |
+| **HMW** | Problem reframing | "How might we [verb] [outcome]?" | 問題重構 |
+| **SCAMPER** | Idea modification | 7 prompts: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other use, Eliminate, Reverse | 創意改造 |
+| **Six Thinking Hats** | Multi-perspective | 6 modes: Facts, Emotions, Risks, Benefits, Creativity, Process | 多角度思考 |
+| **Dot Voting** | Quick prioritization | Each participant gets 3 votes | 快速排序 |
+
+## Session Self-Evaluation | 工作階段自評
+
+After each session, record three metrics (1–5 scale) to track improvement over time.
+
+每次工作階段結束後，記錄三個指標（1–5 分），追蹤長期改善趨勢。
+
+| Metric | Question | 指標 |
+|--------|----------|------|
+| **Adoption Rate** | How many of today's ideas will I actually use? | 採用率：今天的想法有幾個會實際使用？ |
+| **Diversity** | Were the Extension Batch ideas noticeably different from Intuition Batch? | 多樣性：延伸批是否與直覺批明顯不同？ |
+| **Cognitive Load** | How mentally taxing was this session? (5 = effortless, 1 = exhausting) | 認知負擔：這次工作階段的心智消耗程度？ |
+
+Collect 3 sessions before drawing conclusions. See [guide.md](./guide.md) for the full A/B experiment protocol.
+
+收集 3 次工作階段資料再下結論。完整 A/B 實驗協議見 [guide.md](./guide.md)。
+
+## Flags | 旗標
+
+| Flag | Effect | 說明 |
+|------|--------|------|
+| `--skip-preflight` | Skip Phase 0 with warning | 跳過 Phase 0，顯示錨定警告 |
+| `--no-rebuttal` | Skip rebuttal round in CONVERGE | 跳過反駁輪，報告標注 skipped |
+| `--quick` | 3-idea fast mode; gates and rebuttal exempt | 快速 3 想法模式；門檻與反駁均豁免 |
+| `--technique scamper` | Force SCAMPER as primary technique | 強制使用 SCAMPER |
+
 ## Usage | 使用方式
 
-- `/brainstorm` - Start interactive brainstorming session
-- `/brainstorm "user retention"` - Brainstorm around a specific topic
-- `/brainstorm --technique scamper` - Use a specific technique
+- `/brainstorm` — Start interactive brainstorming session
+- `/brainstorm "user retention"` — Brainstorm around a specific topic
+- `/brainstorm --quick "reduce checkout friction"` — Fast 3-idea mode
+- `/brainstorm --skip-preflight "feature X"` — Skip Pre-flight (with warning)
+- `/brainstorm --no-rebuttal "topic"` — Skip rebuttal round
+- `/brainstorm --technique scamper` — Use a specific technique
 
 ## Next Steps Guidance | 下一步引導