
Oma Brainstorm
- 125 installs
- 41 repo stars
- Updated August 4, 2026
- gracefullight/stock-checker
Explore OMA agent architectures, tool boundaries, and backend capabilities for stock-checker before locking multi-agent designs.
About
Brainstorms Open Multi-Agent layouts for gracefullight stock-checker, researching how agents, tools, and backend services should divide inventory monitoring, reasoning, and notifications before coordinated implementation begins.
- OMA agent roles
- Tool and API boundaries
- Architecture options
- Stock domain mapping
- Pre-build agent design
Oma Brainstorm by the numbers
- 125 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #3,739 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/gracefullight/stock-checker --skill oma-brainstormAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 125 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 41 |
| Last updated | August 4, 2026 |
| Repository | gracefullight/stock-checker ↗ |
What it does
Explore OMA agent architectures, tool boundaries, and backend capabilities for stock-checker before locking multi-agent designs.
Files
Brainstorm - Design-First Ideation
Scheduling
Goal
Explore user intent, constraints, and alternative approaches before planning or implementation, then preserve an approved design for downstream planning.
Intent signature
- User says they have an idea, want to brainstorm, compare approaches, explore concepts, or design before planning.
- Request is ambiguous enough that implementation or task planning would be premature.
When to use
- Exploring a new feature idea before planning
- Understanding user intent and constraints before committing to an approach
- Comparing multiple design approaches with trade-offs
- When the user says "I have an idea" or "let's design something"
- Before invoking
/planfor complex or ambiguous requests
When NOT to use
- Requirements are already clear and well-defined -> use
oma-pmdirectly - Implementing actual code -> delegate to specialized agents
- Performing code reviews -> use
oma-qa - Debugging existing issues -> use
oma-debug
Expected inputs
- Early idea, ambiguous goal, product concept, design question, or set of constraints
- Existing project context when the idea must fit a codebase or product direction
- User preferences and approval gates
Expected outputs
- Clarified intent and constraints
- Two or three approaches with tradeoffs and a recommended option
- Section-by-section approved design document
- Saved design artifact before handoff to planning
Dependencies
- Shared context loading, reasoning templates, clarification protocol, quality principles, and skill routing
- Downstream PM workflow for task decomposition after design approval
Control-flow features
- Branches by ambiguity, user answers, approach comparison, and approval gates
- Asks one question at a time
- Stops before implementation or task planning
Structural Flow
Entry
1. Confirm that the request is exploratory rather than ready for implementation. 2. Load enough project context to understand constraints. 3. Start with intent and constraints, not solutions.
Scenes
1. PREPARE: Explore context and frame the design question. 2. ACQUIRE: Ask clarifying questions one at a time. 3. REASON: Generate two or three approaches with tradeoffs. 4. VERIFY: Get user approval section by section. 5. FINALIZE: Save design and transition to planning when appropriate.
Transitions
- If requirements become clear and implementation-ready, transition to PM planning.
- If user rejects an approach, revise before moving to detailed design.
- If implementation pressure appears early, defer it until design approval.
Failure and recovery
- If the user cannot answer a question, propose assumptions and ask for confirmation.
- If scope expands, split the design into smaller sections.
- If alternatives collapse into one option, identify the real constraint causing that.
Exit
- Success: approved design exists and is ready for planning.
- Partial success: open questions and assumptions are explicit.
Logical Operations
Actions
| Action | SSL primitive | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Read context and idea | READ | User prompt and project context |
| Ask targeted questions | REQUEST | Clarification phase |
| Compare approaches | COMPARE | Tradeoff matrix |
| Infer recommendation | INFER | Recommended option |
| Validate approval | VALIDATE | Section-by-section confirmation |
| Write design artifact | WRITE | docs/plans/designs/ and memory |
| Transition to plan | NOTIFY | Handoff summary |
Tools and instruments
- Context loading, reasoning templates, clarification protocol
- Project memory and
docs/plans/designs/for persisted designs
Canonical workflow path
1. Ask one clarifying question at a time.
2. Present 2-3 approaches with tradeoffs and a recommended option.
3. Save the approved design to `docs/plans/designs/` before handing off to planning.Resource scope
| Scope | Resource target |
|---|---|
MEMORY | User intent, assumptions, decisions |
CODEBASE | Existing project context when relevant |
LOCAL_FS | Approved design artifacts |
Preconditions
- The user is still exploring or the request is ambiguous.
- The agent can ask clarifying questions before implementation.
Effects and side effects
- Produces design decisions and persisted design docs.
- Influences downstream planning but does not implement code.
Guardrails
1. No implementation or planning before design approval - brainstorm produces a design document, not code or task plans 2. One question at a time - ask clarifying questions sequentially, not in batches 3. Always propose 2-3 approaches - include a recommended option with trade-off analysis 4. Section-by-section design - present design incrementally with user confirmation at each step 5. YAGNI - do not over-engineer; design only what is needed for the stated goal 6. Save design, then transition - persist the approved design document before handing off to /plan
Execution Phases
Follow the brainstorm workflow step by step: 1. Phase 1 - Context: Explore the existing codebase and understand the project landscape 2. Phase 2 - Questions: Ask clarifying questions one at a time to understand intent and constraints 3. Phase 3 - Approaches: Propose 2-3 approaches with a recommended option and trade-off matrix 4. Phase 4 - Design: Present the detailed design section by section, getting user approval at each step 5. Phase 5 - Documentation: Save the approved design to docs/plans/designs/ and project memory 6. Phase 6 - Transition: Hand off to /plan for task decomposition
Common Pitfalls
- Jumping to solutions: Asking "how" before fully understanding "what" and "why"
- Too many questions at once: Overwhelming the user with a wall of questions
- Single approach bias: Presenting only one option without alternatives
- Over-engineering: Designing for hypothetical future requirements instead of stated needs
- Skipping confirmation: Moving forward without explicit user approval on design decisions
References
Vendor-specific execution protocols are injected automatically by oma agent:spawn. Source files live under ../_shared/runtime/execution-protocols/{vendor}.md.
- Context loading:
../_shared/core/context-loading.md - Reasoning templates:
../_shared/core/reasoning-templates.md - Clarification protocol:
../_shared/core/clarification-protocol.md - Quality principles:
../_shared/core/quality-principles.md - Skill-to-agent mapping:
../_shared/core/skill-routing.md