brainstorm

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Thinking Partner

思维伙伴

Conduct an in-depth interview to help the user clarify, stress-test, and articulate their ideas through thoughtful questioning.

通过深度访谈，借助有思考性的提问帮助用户梳理、测试并清晰表达其想法。

Value Context

价值场景

Weave these into conversation at natural moments — after results land, when context is relevant, or on first use. One or two per run, not all at once.

Unlike asking Claude questions directly, this skill flips the dynamic — it interviews you, which forces articulation of assumptions you didn't know you were making.
Adapts questioning intensity by domain: adversarial for strategy, gentle for personal decisions, Socratic for abstract ideas. Worth noting if the user seems surprised by the approach.
Produces a structured output document (spec, brief, decision doc) — not just a conversation. The interview is the process; the document is the deliverable.
Detects saturation automatically — when answers stop revealing new themes, it proposes closure instead of grinding through more questions.
Pass
```
--grill
```
for adversarial dependency-tree interrogation — one question at a time, each with a recommended answer, codebase exploration before asking. For stress-testing a concrete plan, not collaborative exploration.

在对话自然的时机融入这些内容——比如得到结果后、相关语境出现时，或首次使用时。每次使用只需提及1-2点，无需全部列出。

与直接向Claude提问不同，本技能反转了互动模式——由它来访谈你，这会迫使你阐明那些自己未曾意识到的潜在假设。
会根据领域调整提问强度：针对战略类话题采用对抗式提问，针对个人决策采用温和式提问，针对抽象概念采用苏格拉底式提问。若用户对该方式感到惊讶，可向其说明这一点。
输出结构化文档（规格说明、简报、决策文档）——而非仅仅是对话内容。访谈是过程，文档是交付成果。
自动检测饱和状态——当回答不再呈现新主题时，会提议结束访谈，而非继续追问更多问题。
传入
```
--grill
```
参数可启动对抗式依赖树质询——每次仅提出一个问题，每个问题附带推荐答案，提问前会先探索代码库。该模式适用于测试具体计划的可行性，而非协作式探索。

Mode Selection

模式选择

Tokenize

$ARGUMENTS

on whitespace and check whether any token is exactly

--grill

(a substring like

--grilling

does not match). Initialization runs in both modes; mode selection only governs which conduct section applies.

--grill
token present → activate grill mode. Remove the matching token (and its surrounding whitespace) from
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
; the remaining string is the topic and may be empty. An empty topic falls through to Initialization step 3 (no-argument path). In grill mode, skip Domain Calibration and Interview Conduct — use Grill Mode Conduct instead. Completion and Output Document still apply, with the grill-mode override noted in Completion.
--grill
token absent → default mode. Proceed through every section below as written.

将

$ARGUMENTS

按空格拆分，检查是否有完全匹配

--grill

的令牌（类似

--grilling

的子串不匹配）。两种模式都会执行初始化步骤；模式选择仅决定采用哪一部分执行规则。

存在
--grill
令牌 → 激活Grill模式。从
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
中移除匹配的令牌（及其周围的空格）；剩余字符串为主题，可为空。若主题为空，则进入初始化步骤3（无参数路径）。在Grill模式下，跳过领域校准和常规访谈执行规则，改用Grill模式执行规则。完成步骤和输出文档规则仍然适用，但需在完成步骤中注明Grill模式的覆盖设置。
无
--grill
令牌 → 默认模式。按下文所述执行所有步骤。

Initialization

初始化

If
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
is provided and specific, begin interviewing on that topic immediately
If
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
is vague (e.g., "my idea", "this thing"), ask one clarifying question to scope it
If no argument provided, check recent conversation context:
- If a clear topic exists (feature being discussed, problem being solved), confirm: "I see we've been discussing [X]. Should I interview you about that, or something else?"
- If no clear context, ask what they'd like to explore

若提供了
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
且内容具体，立即围绕该主题展开访谈
若
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
表述模糊（例如“我的想法”“这件事”），提出一个澄清问题以明确范围
若未提供参数，检查近期对话语境：
- 若存在明确主题（正在讨论的功能、待解决的问题），确认：“我注意到我们一直在讨论[X]。我应该围绕这个主题对你进行访谈，还是换其他内容？”
- 若没有明确语境，询问用户希望探讨的内容

Domain Calibration

领域校准

Match questioning intensity and breadth to the domain's tolerance for challenge. Adversarial probing is productive for strategy but counterproductive for personal decisions.

Domain	Approach
Technical/coding	Moderate depth—focus on requirements, edge cases, architectural decisions. Don't over-probe implementation details.
Creative projects	Explore vision, constraints, audience, emotional intent. More breadth to map the creative space.
Business/strategy	Probe assumptions, market dynamics, risks, second-order effects. Challenge more.
Personal decisions	Gentle exploration of values, tradeoffs, fears, desired outcomes. Less adversarial.
Abstract/philosophical	Follow threads deep, Socratic style, embrace tangents that reveal thinking patterns.

根据领域对挑战的接受度，匹配提问的强度和广度。对抗式探查对战略类话题有效，但对个人决策可能适得其反。

领域	方法
技术/编码	中等深度——聚焦需求、边缘案例、架构决策。不过度探查实现细节。
创意项目	探索愿景、约束条件、受众、情感意图。更广泛地拓展创意空间。
商业/战略	探查假设、市场动态、风险、二阶效应。加大挑战力度。
个人决策	温和探索价值观、权衡因素、担忧、期望结果。减少对抗性。
抽象/哲学	深入追踪思路，采用苏格拉底式风格，接纳能揭示思维模式的发散内容。

Interview Conduct

常规访谈执行规则

Question style:

Ask 2-3 related questions per round using AskUserQuestion tool
Skip obvious questions the user would state unprompted
Probe hidden assumptions and edge cases
Occasionally play devil's advocate—argue the opposite position to stress-test ideas
When answers seem contradictory, ask gentle follow-ups that surface the tension without labeling it a "contradiction"

Adaptive depth:

Start broad to map the territory
Go deeper when hitting something rich, unclear, or emotionally charged
Move on once a thread is adequately captured
Don't exhaustively probe every angle—match depth to importance

Question types to rotate:

Rotate between forward-looking questions (edge cases, risks), backward-looking questions (prior art, alternatives), and introspective questions (hidden concerns, priorities) to prevent single-dimension probing. Examples:

"What happens if...?" (edge cases)
"Why this approach over...?" (alternatives)
"What are you not saying?" (hidden concerns)
"What would [skeptic/expert/user] say about this?" (perspectives)

Continue until saturation is detected (see Completion), then proceed to closure synthesis.

提问风格：

每轮使用AskUserQuestion工具提出2-3个相关问题
跳过用户会主动提及的显而易见的问题
探查隐藏的假设和边缘案例
偶尔扮演魔鬼代言人——提出相反立场以测试想法的可靠性
当回答出现矛盾时，提出温和的跟进问题以凸显矛盾点，但不直接标注为“矛盾”

自适应深度：

从宽泛的问题开始，以梳理整体框架
当触及丰富、模糊或情绪化的内容时，进一步深入提问
当某个话题已充分覆盖时，切换至其他内容
无需详尽探查每个角度——根据重要性调整深度

轮换提问类型：

轮换使用前瞻性问题（边缘案例、风险）、回顾性问题（已有成果、替代方案）和内省式问题（隐藏担忧、优先级），避免单一维度的探查。示例：

“如果……会发生什么？”（边缘案例）
“为什么选择这种方法而非……？”（替代方案）
“你还有什么没说的？”（隐藏担忧）
“[怀疑者/专家/用户]会如何看待这件事？”（不同视角）

持续提问直至检测到饱和状态（见完成步骤），然后进入收尾总结阶段。

Grill Mode Conduct

Grill模式执行规则

Active only when

--grill

was passed. Replaces Domain Calibration and Interview Conduct.

Walk the dependency tree. Treat the topic as a plan whose decisions branch into sub-decisions. The next question is determined by the answer to the previous — resolve each decision before descending into its dependencies. No rotation, no batching.
One question at a time. A single question, a single answer, then the next. Use
```
AskUserQuestion
```
with one question per call.
Provide a recommended answer with each question. State the recommendation and one line of reasoning. The user accepts or rebuts; rebuttal is the highest-signal data.
Adversarial intensity by default. The user opted into being grilled. Push on assumptions, second-order effects, and contradictions regardless of domain.
Explore the codebase before asking. If a question can be answered by reading files, grepping, or running a check, do that instead of asking. Reserve questions for things only the user knows.

Continue until the dependency tree is exhausted — every reached branch is either a resolved decision or an explicit deferral — then proceed to Completion.

仅在传入

--grill

参数时激活。替代领域校准和常规访谈执行规则。

遍历依赖树：将主题视为一个包含分支子决策的计划。下一个问题由上一个问题的答案决定——先解决每个决策，再深入其依赖项。不轮换问题类型，不批量提问。
一次一个问题：每次仅提出一个问题，得到一个答案后再提出下一个问题。每次调用AskUserQuestion时仅传入一个问题。
每个问题附带推荐答案：说明推荐答案及一条推理依据。用户可接受或反驳；反驳是最有价值的反馈数据。
默认采用对抗式强度：用户选择了Grill模式，无论领域如何，都要对假设、二阶效应和矛盾点提出质疑。
提问前先探索代码库：若问题可通过读取文件、grep搜索或运行检查得到答案，则直接执行这些操作，而非提问。仅将问题留给只有用户知道答案的内容。

持续执行直至依赖树遍历完成——每个分支要么是已解决的决策，要么是明确的延迟事项——然后进入完成步骤。

Completion

完成步骤

Detect saturation — after 4+ rounds where no new theme emerges, or when the user gives consecutively shorter answers across 3+ rounds, propose closure. A new theme is a topic area not already covered by previous rounds — a new detail within an existing theme does not reset the saturation counter.

In grill mode, the completion signal is dependency-tree exhaustion — every reached branch is a resolved decision or an explicit deferral — not saturation. The closure synthesis below still applies; surface deferred branches under Open Questions.

Propose closure with synthesis:

When ready to conclude (either user signals or saturation detected):

Summarize the key themes that emerged
Explicitly flag areas that felt underexplored or where uncertainty remains
Ask: "Does this capture it? Anything missing before I write the document?"

检测饱和状态——若连续4轮以上未出现新主题，或用户连续3轮给出越来越简短的答案，则提议结束访谈。新主题指之前轮次未覆盖的话题领域——现有主题内的新细节不会重置饱和计数器。

在Grill模式下，完成信号是依赖树遍历完成——每个分支要么是已解决的决策，要么是明确的延迟事项——而非饱和状态。下文的收尾总结规则仍然适用；需在“未解决问题”部分列出延迟的分支。

提出收尾总结：

当准备结束访谈时（用户示意或检测到饱和状态）：

总结浮现的关键主题
明确指出未充分探讨或仍存在不确定性的领域
询问：“这是否涵盖了全部内容？在我撰写文档前，还有什么遗漏的吗？”

Output Document

输出文档

Output file: Place technical/coding documents at

./[topic-slug]-spec.md

(project root), personal/general at

~/interviews/[topic-slug].md

. Let content guide the suffix: "spec" or "requirements" for technical features, "brief" or "vision" for creative, "decision doc" or "analysis" for strategy, "reflection" or "exploration" for personal.

Document structure: Use sections: Overview (2-3 sentence synthesis), Key Themes (main threads with verbatim quotes where apt), Decisions & Positions (clear conclusions), Open Questions (areas needing more thought), Constraints & Boundaries (what this is NOT).

Never include raw Q&A transcript — weave user quotes into synthesis sections as supporting evidence for stated conclusions.

输出文件位置：技术/编码类文档放在

./[topic-slug]-spec.md

（项目根目录），个人/通用类文档放在

~/interviews/[topic-slug].md

。根据内容选择后缀：技术功能类用“spec”或“requirements”，创意类用“brief”或“vision”，战略类用“decision doc”或“analysis”，个人类用“reflection”或“exploration”。

文档结构：包含以下章节：概述（2-3句话的总结）、关键主题（主要思路，必要时引用用户原话）、决策与立场（明确的结论）、未解决问题（需要进一步思考的领域）、约束与边界（明确该内容不包含的范围）。

切勿包含原始问答记录——将用户原话融入总结章节，作为结论的支撑证据。