68 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
68 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
# Brainstorming Examples
|
|
|
|
## Example: AI Code Review Tools
|
|
|
|
This example shows how to use the brainstorming skill to refine a vague idea into a concrete blog post angle.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
You: I want to write about code reviews
|
|
|
|
AI: [invokes brainstorming skill]
|
|
What aspect of code reviews? Process, tooling, culture?
|
|
|
|
You: How AI code review tools miss important stuff
|
|
|
|
AI: Interesting - what do they miss that humans catch?
|
|
|
|
You: Context, design decisions, why code exists
|
|
|
|
AI: So it's not about finding bugs, but understanding intent?
|
|
Have you seen this happen in practice?
|
|
|
|
You: Yes, at my current company - AI flags style but misses architecture issues
|
|
|
|
AI: That's concrete. Are you arguing:
|
|
(1) AI tools are fundamentally limited, or
|
|
(2) Current tools need better context, or
|
|
(3) Humans and AI serve different purposes?
|
|
|
|
You: Probably #3 - they're complementary
|
|
|
|
AI: Good angle - avoids being anti-AI while still critical.
|
|
[updates braindump.md]
|
|
|
|
Should we outline this? Thinking:
|
|
1. The Promise (what AI code review claims to do)
|
|
2. What It Misses (context, intent, architecture)
|
|
3. What Humans Still Do Better
|
|
4. How to Use Both Together
|
|
|
|
You: Yes, but add why this matters
|
|
|
|
AI: [adds to outline in braindump.md]
|
|
Added "Why This Matters" section - practical implications
|
|
for engineering teams. Ready to start drafting?
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## What This Example Demonstrates
|
|
|
|
**Techniques Used:**
|
|
- Started with questions, not suggestions
|
|
- Explored the specific angle (not all aspects of code reviews)
|
|
- Challenged assumptions ("is it about bugs or intent?")
|
|
- Grounded in concrete experience (current company)
|
|
- Offered multiple perspectives (3 different angles)
|
|
- Transitioned only when ready (clear argument, examples, outline)
|
|
|
|
**Braindump Updates:**
|
|
- Context: Experience at current company with AI code review
|
|
- Core Argument: AI and human code review are complementary, not competitive
|
|
- Audience: Engineering teams using or considering AI code review tools
|
|
- Outline: 4 main sections identified
|
|
|
|
**Signs of Readiness:**
|
|
- Core argument clear (complementary, not competitive)
|
|
- Concrete example identified (company experience)
|
|
- User expressed confidence in direction
|
|
- Outline emerged naturally from conversation
|