Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Turn vague ideas into clear specs with acceptance criteria through collaborative
.claude/skills/1mancompany-project-brainstorming-requirements-discovery-before-execution/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 42% | 0% |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 0% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 76% | 0% |
| case-21 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 24% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | -21% | 0% |
Turn vague ideas into clear specs with acceptance criteria through collaborative dialogue with the CEO. Understand what to build before building it.
<HARD-GATE> Do NOT dispatch any project work to the team until the CEO has approved your proposed plan. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be SHORT (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get CEO approval before dispatching. </HARD-GATE>
USE brainstorming for:
SKIP brainstorming for:
Before asking the CEO anything:
Ask the CEO questions via dispatch_child(target_employee_id="00001", ...). The system preserves your conversation history — when CEO replies, you will see ALL prior CEO replies in your task context under CEO REPLY] sections.
Before proposing solutions, question your own assumptions:
If you identify a premise worth challenging, raise it with the CEO via dispatch_child(target_employee_id="00001").
You MUST present at least 2 approaches with trade-offs:
dispatch_child(
target_employee_id="00001",
description="""
Based on our discussion, here are the approaches I see:
## Approach A: [Name] (Recommended)
**What**: [2-3 sentences]
**Pros**: [bullet points]
**Cons**: [bullet points]
**Team**: [who does what]
## Approach B: [Name]
**What**: [2-3 sentences]
**Pros**: [bullet points]
**Cons**: [bullet points]
**Team**: [who does what]
**My recommendation**: Approach [X] because [one-line reason].
**Proposed Acceptance Criteria**:
1. [measurable, verifiable criterion]
2. [measurable, verifiable criterion]
3. [measurable, verifiable criterion]
Please choose an approach and confirm/adjust the acceptance criteria.
""",
acceptance_criteria=["CEO selects approach and approves acceptance criteria"]
)After CEO approves:
set_project_name() with a concise 2-6 word namedesign.md to the project workspace for medium/large projects| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 8,760 | 15,908 | +82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,417 | 1,459 | +3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 12,393 | 4,198 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,968 | 1,473 | -25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 12,684 | 7,583 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,991 | 1,867 | -6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 12,158 | 4,392 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,869 | 1,671 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 10,204 | 6,597 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,262 | 1,785 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→fail | 16,615 | 8,372 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,402 | 1,652 | -31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→fail | 15,142 | 6,256 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,150 | 1,845 | -41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→fail | 6,566 | 8,999 | +37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,110 | 1,807 | +63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 6,170 | 1,570 | -75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 991 | 1,412 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 8,795 | 4,761 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,308 | 1,684 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→fail | 3,467 | 9,753 | +181% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 555 | 1,770 | +219% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 14,637 | 3,535 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,371 | 1,447 | -39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→fail | 15,586 | 3,801 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,450 | 1,535 | -37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→fail | 12,436 | 3,173 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,985 | 1,434 | -28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | 6,659 | 2,622 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,089 | 1,605 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 10,496 | 2,272 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,615 | 1,614 | -0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→fail | 17,837 | 8,608 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,807 | 2,185 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→fail | 6,581 | 11,162 | +70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 939 | 1,844 | +96% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 6,819 | 3,742 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,043 | 1,838 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | 10,194 | 3,104 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,696 | 1,754 | +3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 8,155 | 1,622 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,178 | 1,456 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→fail | 16,404 | 6,713 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,465 | 1,783 | -28% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 6 counted toward the lift figure. The other 16 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of -27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 6 comparable cases. 12 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.