brainstorming

brainstorming

Idea work has three movements: diverge → debate → converge. Most teams skip the middle one and converge on the first plausible idea. The debate panel is the point of this skill.

1. Diverge — generate genuinely different bets

From a framed problem (who · cost-of-pain · why-now · success metric), produce 3–5 distinct approaches — different bets, not cosmetic variants. Force diversity along at least one axis each:

• different user (who you serve first)
• different wedge (the one feature you lead with)
• different scope (concierge/manual vs full self-serve)
• different business shape (tool you sell vs outcome you deliver)

For each: the core bet · the smallest version that tests it · the main risk. Reject near-duplicates — if two options share the same bet, drop one and push for a more contrarian alternative.

2. Debate — the idea-debate panel

Four personas, four different models, two rounds. Model diversity matters: different model families fail differently, so they catch different holes.

Persona	Stance — argues…	Model	Invocation
Visionary	the strongest case FOR — the 10x outcome if it works	claude-opus-4-8	Task, model: opus
Skeptic	the strongest case AGAINST — why it fails / who tried & died	claude-sonnet-4-6	Task, model: sonnet
User-Advocate	the user's honest reaction — would I pay / switch / care? AND, for any product that messages or collects data from end-recipients, the recipient's consent/opt-in friction (TCPA / opt-out / spam fatigue / who refuses)	claude-haiku-4-5	Task, model: haiku
Pragmatist	cost, time-to-ship, build-vs-buy, unit economics	Kimi K2	mcp__great_cto_llm_router__ask_kimi

Round 1 — opening positions (blind, parallel)

Spawn the three Task personas in one message (parallel) + call the Kimi router for the Pragmatist. Each gets the framed problem + the diverge options and only its own stance. Prompt template:

You are the {persona} on a product debate panel. Stance: {stance}. Problem: {framing}. Options on the table: {options}. Make the strongest possible {for/against} case. Be specific and concrete — name the mechanism, the comparable, the number. End with: verdict (BUILD / DON'T / PIVOT-to-which-option) + your single biggest worry.

Round 2 — rebuttal (informed)

Feed each persona the other three's Round-1 positions. Ask:

Here are the other panelists' positions: {r1_others}. Rebut the one you most disagree with. Then give your updated verdict and the one condition that would change your mind.

Convergence guard

If all four agree in Round 1, the framing was too soft — re-run with a sharper, explicitly contrarian Skeptic ("assume this is a bad idea; prove it"). Genuine consensus only counts when the Skeptic was given every chance to kill it.

3. Converge — synthesize (the chair decides)

The product-owner (Opus) is the chair, not a vote-counter. Read all eight statements and produce:

• The decisive consideration — the one argument that actually settles it
• Strongest FOR and strongest AGAINST (steelmanned, attributed)
• The call — BUILD / DON'T BUILD / PIVOT, with the reason in one sentence
• What would flip it — the kill-criteria / the condition to revisit
• Dissent preserved — if a persona held a strong minority view, record it; don't launder it out. Tomorrow's "why didn't we think of X" lives here.

Feed this straight into the product brief's Debate digest section.

Cost note

The panel is ~$0.30–0.60 per idea (one Opus + one Sonnet + one Haiku + one Kimi call × 2 rounds). That is the cheapest insurance in the pipeline: it runs before any engineering time is spent, at the stage where "no" is free and "yes" is expensive.