Loading the registry…
创意生成与根因分析伙伴。当用户想要为某个主题/问题/产品大量产出点子、做发散思考、激发灵感，或明确提到"头脑风暴""brainstorm""帮我想点子""有什么想法"时使用；当用户想极速海量产出、提到"便签""brainwriting""越快越好""越多越好""as fast as you can""抓便签"时把表达密度换成「便签速写」；当用户想锁数量逼多样性、提到"crazy eights""八个点子""8 个草图""限时 sketch""一分钟一个""8 分钟"时叠加「Crazy Eights」结构（固定 8 条、每条一张粗糙草图、越野越怪越好）；当用户想反着来、提到"坏主意""最差的想法""绝对不该做""千万别""反着来""worst idea""reverse brainstorm"时叠加「坏点子先行」结构（先刷一批坏主意再逐条翻转）；当用户想把所有模式都跑一遍、提到"全部模式都跑""并行""同时跑""最大化""都试试""每个方式都来一遍""all modes""run them all"时进入「并行发散」——一次性派出多个 subagent 各跑一种模式，每个产出独立存档；当用户遇到问题想找根本原因、提到"根因""根本原因""5 whys""五个为什么"或反复追问"为什么"时也使用；当用户想把问题重新框定、提到"How might we""HMW""我们怎样才能"时也使用；当用户想把某个想法展开成故事、提到"故事板""storyboard""六格""6 格""讲个故事""画个流程""使用场景""用户旅程"时进入第六步故事板。即使没有明说，只要语气是在征集开放性的创意、排查问题深层原因、重框问题、或把一个想法具象化成使用故事，都应触发。流程是：明确主题 → 用 How Might We 重框问题并挑几个最喜欢的 → 对着它们运用创意技巧大量发散（表达密度「点子+亮点」或「便签速写」打底，按需叠加「坏点子先行」或「Crazy Eights」结构；或按需进入「并行发散」让多种模式同时跑）→ 让用户选择收敛方式（AI 打分 / 自己用框架 / Five Whys 根因深挖）→ 产出可落地的方案清单 → （可选）把挑中的那条做成六格故事板。全程把会话实时存档到 .brainstorming/ 目录（README 做索引），不纳入 git。用与用户相同的语言回应。
Claude Skills are markdown + scripts loaded into Claude Code; scanned with the same pipeline.
We found this by crawling public sources and nobody has attested to it. That is how most of the registry gets here, and it is not a mark against the artifact — it only means no authenticated act of publication is on record. An artifact can be the vendor's own and still appear here.
1 critical finding reported by agent-audit-kit. The composite score alone does not reflect this — read the per-scanner reports below.
Claude Skills install to a single target, no runtime picker.
nerlo install -- 'boltdoggy/skills (brainstorming)'
Manual alternative: copy the skill folder into ~/.claude/skills/ so Claude Code loads it on next launch.
cp -r -- 'boltdoggy/skills (brainstorming)' ~/.claude/skills/
Install respects the composite badge: Clean proceeds, Caution prompts for confirmation, and Flagged is refused. Write operations require an API token.
3 of 11 scanners examined this package. The rest do not apply to it — language, ecosystem and packaging decide which analyzers can say anything, and a scanner that cannot examine an artifact reports nothing rather than passing it.
v2.0.11
8 findings · 6.2s
v0.3.74
5 findings · 0.7s
v0.1.0
1 finding · 2.6s
v1.4.0
None of the entry points this scanner reads were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.2s
v0.1.0
No source files this scanner can analyze were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 2.6s
vv0.3.2
No Go packages were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.1s
v0.1.0
This scanner found nothing in this artifact that it assesses. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 1.1s
No report in this scan: govulncheck, osv-scanner, trivy, trivy_image.
1 scan on record. Every scan's full results are retained immutably for 24 months.
| Completed | Composite | Change | Scanners | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2026 | Scan Halted | — | agentshield ·n/a: not applicablecisco-skill-scanner: completeagent-audit-kit: completenerlo-behavioral ·n/a: not applicablenerlo-install-instruction: completecapslock ·n/a: not applicablenerlo-multi-source ·n/a: not applicable | rejected |
Findings in files this artifact installs stand as reported; a model re-read the rest and said which ones it believes are false positives. This is a second opinion published beside the evidence, not a correction to it: the per-scanner reports above are unchanged, every dismissed finding is still listed there at its original severity, and the score and the Flagged badge are computed from those raw severities alone. Nothing below moved them.
This review has not run for this scan yet. It runs once per scan, in the background, and is kept; it appears here when it has. Until then all 14 findings above stand exactly as their scanners reported them, at full severity.