Skills executor-brainstorm
๐Ÿ“ฆ

executor-brainstorm

Content revision r1 Medium Risk โš™๏ธ External commands๐Ÿ“ Filesystem access

Compare Feature Designs Before Specification and Planning

Rough feature ideas can become specifications before alternatives and failure cases are examined. This skill structures research, independent concepts, critique, and human decisions into a recorded design.

Supports: Claude Codex Code(CC)
๐Ÿ“Š 69 Adequate

Install with my Agent

Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.

Agent request
Review the Skillstore skill "executor-brainstorm" from https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.

Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.

Agent-readable resources

Use these links when an AI agent, crawler, or script needs clean context instead of reading the full page.

Test it

Using "executor-brainstorm". Illustrative request: compare self-service tenant onboarding approaches with low operational cost.

Expected outcome:

  • Brief: let tenant administrators onboard without operator assistance; agree success measures and constraints before concept exploration.
  • Concepts: manual approval with automation, guided self-service, and asynchronous provisioning, plus the current process as a baseline.
  • Stress test: examine duplicate submissions, failed provisioning, authorization mistakes, and recovery paths.
  • Decision: the human chooses guided self-service and records the operational tradeoff.
  • Handoff: requirement candidates for each flow, an initial delivery slice, and unresolved assumptions.

Using "executor-brainstorm". Illustrative request: choose how a specification should split into implementation plans.

Expected outcome:

  • Options: split by user journey, by domain boundary, or by delivery increment.
  • Known approaches: compare each split with existing repository conventions and explain what it borrows.
  • Adversarial pass: examine integration dependencies, migration order, and rollback costs for the favored split.
  • Outcome: record the human choice, rationale, and planning phase that receives the decision.

Security Audit

Medium Risk
v1 โ€ข 10/5/2026 Open versioned report

Of 132 static findings, 129 are formatting, fixed sibling references, or legitimate local checks; three retain uncertainty about required, unreviewed helper execution. One semantic finding identifies missing confidentiality review for public design records. No evidence found of malicious prompt injection, credential exfiltration, or network reconnaissance in the four supplied files.

4
Files scanned
1,204
Lines analyzed
3
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

Medium
Public Records Lack Confidentiality Review
The workflow records business constraints and repository findings in a store described as public. Only a secrets scan is required, leaving personal and proprietary information without explicit publication approval or redaction.
The source explicitly calls the store public and requires recording business constraints and repository details. Disclosure depends on actual inputs; no transmission is demonstrated.
Capability review items (3)

These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.

Medium
Ruby/shell backtick execution
```bash
The Bash example invokes an external exec-id helper absent from the reviewed package. Its effects cannot be verified, so execution remains a dependency risk.
Medium
Ruby/shell backtick execution
1. `../executor/scripts/exec-store-check` โ€” no B2 or B3 finding for this
The workflow requires running exec-store-check from a sibling package absent from this review. Unknown helper effects remain an execution risk.
Medium
Ruby/shell backtick execution
4. `../executor/scripts/exec-scan-secrets <session dir>` โ€” exit 0; the
The workflow requires running exec-scan-secrets on session files, but its implementation is outside this review. Its access and side effects remain unverified.

Risk Factors

โš™๏ธ External commands (50)
concept-explorer-prompt.md:57 concept-explorer-prompt.md:67-72 concept-explorer-prompt.md:72-76 concept-explorer-prompt.md:76-79 concept-explorer-prompt.md:79-83 concept-explorer-prompt.md:83-94 concept-explorer-prompt.md:94-97 concept-explorer-prompt.md:97-98 concept-explorer-prompt.md:98-133 concept-explorer-prompt.md:133 concept-explorer-prompt.md:135-176 concept-explorer-prompt.md:176-180 design-critic-prompt.md:49 design-critic-prompt.md:66-69 design-critic-prompt.md:69-73 design-critic-prompt.md:73-78 design-critic-prompt.md:78-91 design-critic-prompt.md:91-94 design-critic-prompt.md:94-95 design-critic-prompt.md:95-101 design-critic-prompt.md:101-104 design-critic-prompt.md:104-108 design-critic-prompt.md:108-125 design-critic-prompt.md:125-133 design-critic-prompt.md:134 design-critic-prompt.md:145-209 design-critic-prompt.md:209-222 design-critic-prompt.md:222-225 design-critic-prompt.md:225-229 design-critic-prompt.md:294 design-critic-prompt.md:296-297 design-critic-prompt.md:297-305 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:43-61 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:61-64 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:64-71 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:71-77 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:77-96 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:96-103 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:103-110 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:110-114 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:115 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:126-140 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:140-146 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:146-168 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:168-179 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:179-195 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:195-196 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:196-198 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:198-203 prior-art-scout-prompt.md:256
๐Ÿ“ Filesystem access (6)
Audited by: codex
Share & cite this report

Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.

Open versioned report
Security Assessment

Copy report link

https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Markdown badge

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

HTML badge

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Embed card

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>
Academic citations (APA ยท BibTeX ยท CFF)

APA citation

atri10. (2026). executor-brainstorm security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm/audits/1

BibTeX citation

@techreport{atri10-atri10-executor-brainstorm-2026, author = {atri10}, title = {executor-brainstorm security audit report (audit version 1)}, institution = {Skillstore}, year = {2026}, number = {1}, url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm/audits/1}, note = {Author version unspecified} }

CITATION.cff

cff-version: 1.2.0 message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report." title: "executor-brainstorm security audit report (audit version 1)" version: "unspecified" type: report authors: - name: "atri10" date-released: "2026-10-05" url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-brainstorm/audits/1" identifiers: - type: other value: "skillstore:atri10-executor-brainstorm:audit:1" description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Skillstore Score

Why this score Evidence Confidence: Medium
55
Architecture
85
Maintainability
87
Content
65
Community
83
Spec Compliance

What You Can Build

Evaluate a New Product Capability

Compare distinct feature concepts against agreed user outcomes, costs, and constraints before selecting a design.

Resolve an Architecture Question

Generate at least three options for storage or synchronization, examine precedent and failure cases, and record the chosen approach.

Prepare Planning Boundaries

Use decision mode to compare specification decomposition options and record the selected plan boundaries before planning begins.

Try These Prompts

Frame a Rough Idea
Use executor-brainstorm for this idea: [idea]. Start with a design brief and ask me to approve actors, outcomes, constraints, and evaluation weights.
Compare Feature Concepts
Design [feature] in [repository]. Research [focus areas], compare three independent lenses and the status quo, critique leading concepts, and ask for my decision.
Resolve One Design Question
Run decision mode for [question]. Generate at least three options, identify known approaches, challenge the favorite, and record my choice for [phase].
Prepare a Constrained Design Handoff
Run design mode for [capability] under [constraints]. Compare robustness, experience, and reuse lenses; test failure flows, rollback, and tenfold scale. Document requirement candidates and increments. Obtain my approval before deciding, and review confidentiality before writing public records. Report unavailable helpers instead of claiming verification.

Best Practices

  • Agree measurable outcomes, constraints, and evaluation weights before generating concepts.
  • Keep explorers independent and record every critique finding with an explicit disposition.
  • Review public records for confidential information and verify trusted companion helpers before claiming completion.

Avoid

  • Choose the winning concept first and adjust evaluation weights afterward.
  • Let explorers read sibling concepts or let a concept author critique their own work.
  • Mark a session decided without the human choice or claim verification when required helpers are unavailable.

Frequently Asked Questions

When should I use design mode?
Use design mode for a new feature or capability that needs a complete design before specification.
When should I use decision mode?
Use decision mode for one open design question or planning decomposition. It compares at least three options and normally runs without subagents.
Who chooses the final design?
The human chooses after reviewing the concepts and critique. If no choice is made, the session remains draft.
What does the skill produce?
Design mode records a dossier, concepts, prior art, critique, risks, and handoff material. Decision mode records options, an adversarial pass, and an outcome.
Are these four files enough for the complete workflow?
No. The complete workflow references sibling Executor helpers and documentation. Parallel design exploration also requires subagent support in the host harness.
Can I include confidential project information?
The instructions describe the store as public. Use private storage or approved, redacted inputs; a secrets scan does not establish publication permission.

Developer Details

Author

atri10

License

MIT

Skillstore revision

r1

Version notice

The author did not declare a version.

Ref

6d0b11444384184b7ae743742a7e233a9a705cd9

Maintenance freshness

10/6/2026

Usage

0 downloads ยท 1 views

File structure

More from atri10

View all
View all