Ideate

Generate multiple design options for "$ARGUMENTS" before committing to a single approach. Encourage creative exploration by producing at least 3 distinct options.

Prerequisites

Read .metapowers/design/$ARGUMENTS/02-define.md. If this file does not exist, tell the user:

Phase 2 (Define) has not been completed for "$ARGUMENTS". Run /design:define $ARGUMENTS first, or use --skip-checks to bypass.

If --skip-checks is present in $ARGUMENTS, skip this check and log to .metapowers/design/$ARGUMENTS/skip-log.md.

Process

1. Read context files:

   • Read .metapowers/design/$ARGUMENTS/01-empathize.md for research findings (if exists)
   • Read .metapowers/design/$ARGUMENTS/02-define.md for the component contract
   • Read plugins/design/shared/wcag-criteria.md for accessibility constraints

2. Read the design system via MCP tools:

   • Call figma_get_design_system to understand available tokens and patterns
   • Call figma_get_variables with exportFormat: "json" to get token values

3. Generate 3+ design options. For each option:

   • Describe the visual approach and layout strategy
   • Map which tokens from the design system would be used
   • Evaluate against the component contract's constraints
   • Assess accessibility compliance
   • Note trade-offs (complexity, flexibility, consistency)

4. Create a FigJam brainstorming board (if FigJam is available):

   • Call figjam_create_stickies with each option as a sticky note
   • Call figjam_create_table with a comparison matrix

5. Recommend one approach with clear rationale explaining why it best satisfies the component contract.

6. Write the artifact to .metapowers/design/$ARGUMENTS/03-ideate.md

Output

The ideation document written to .metapowers/design/$ARGUMENTS/03-ideate.md. Present a summary to the user highlighting:

• Number of options explored
• Recommended approach and rationale
• Key trade-offs between options
• Any contract constraints that were difficult to satisfy