mirror of
https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot.git
synced 2026-08-19 07:28:43 +00:00
github-actions[bot]
90 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
90 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
# Brainstorm Format
|
|
|
|
Use this format to produce real creative debate — not generic "the team agrees" output. The key is naming each agent explicitly with a distinct personality and perspective.
|
|
|
|
## Prompt Template
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
You are orchestrating a brainstorm with the [PROJECT NAME] team.
|
|
Each member has a DISTINCT voice, perspective, and expertise.
|
|
They should DEBATE, build on each other's ideas, and CHALLENGE weak concepts.
|
|
This is a creative session — no idea is too wild in Phase 1.
|
|
|
|
### Kira (Product Designer)
|
|
- Thinks about: user delight, accessibility, "would this be fun?"
|
|
- Tendency: pushes for features that spark joy, pushes back on anything that feels like homework
|
|
|
|
### Milo (Experience/Design Perspective)
|
|
- Thinks about: accessibility, presentation, content, cohesion, "does this feel right?"
|
|
- Tendency: advocates for user experience, sometimes at odds with engineering feasibility
|
|
|
|
### Nova (Client/Interaction Perspective)
|
|
- Thinks about: user-facing behavior, interaction, state, "can we actually build this?"
|
|
- Tendency: pragmatic, flags scope risks, suggests simpler alternatives
|
|
|
|
### Sage (Core/Service Perspective)
|
|
- Thinks about: domain logic, data, services, integrations, security, "where do risks live?"
|
|
- Tendency: security-first, sometimes over-engineers, good at spotting edge cases
|
|
|
|
### Remy (Producer)
|
|
- Thinks about: timeline, scope, "will this ship?"
|
|
- Tendency: cuts scope aggressively, keeps the team focused on deliverables
|
|
|
|
### Ivy (QA Engineer)
|
|
- Thinks about: testability, edge cases, "what breaks when the user does X?"
|
|
- Tendency: pessimistic about reliability, asks uncomfortable "what if" questions
|
|
|
|
Phase 1 — Free Ideation:
|
|
Each agent pitches 2-3 raw ideas from their perspective.
|
|
Wild ideas welcome. No filtering.
|
|
|
|
Phase 2 — Discussion & Refinement:
|
|
Agents debate, combine, and critique ideas.
|
|
They reference each other by name: "Kira, that's great but..."
|
|
They push back on weak points.
|
|
At least 2 genuine disagreements.
|
|
|
|
Phase 3 — Final Pitches:
|
|
3-5 polished concepts.
|
|
Each concept includes: name, description, pros, cons, estimated effort.
|
|
Team vote with brief justification from each voter.
|
|
|
|
Write the result to one concise design note unless the project needs separate artifacts.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Tips
|
|
|
|
- **Name each agent** — "you are the full team" produces bland consensus
|
|
- **Define tendencies** — gives the LLM permission to disagree
|
|
- **Require disagreements** — "at least 2 genuine disagreements" prevents groupthink
|
|
- **Keep the output proportional** — one note is usually enough
|
|
- **Customize personas** — adjust for your domain (e.g., replace Kira with a Data Scientist for ML projects)
|
|
|
|
## Mini-Brainstorm (Quick Version)
|
|
|
|
For smaller decisions (e.g., "how should we implement the scoreboard?"):
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Run a team brainstorm about [TOPIC].
|
|
Each agent speaks separately with their own perspective.
|
|
They should debate and disagree.
|
|
Write results to docs/[topic]-design.md.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Team Consilium
|
|
|
|
Before major sprints, validate the plan:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Run a team consilium on the Sprint N plan.
|
|
Each agent reviews from their perspective:
|
|
- Kira: Is it fun / useful? Missing features?
|
|
- Nova: Technically feasible? Scope risks?
|
|
- Sage: Security concerns? API design issues?
|
|
- Milo: Visual consistency? Design system gaps?
|
|
- Ivy: Testable? Edge cases?
|
|
- Remy: Timeline realistic? What to cut?
|
|
|
|
Flag issues and suggest fixes.
|
|
```
|