Creative brainstorming and idea refinement expertise — SCAMPER, 5 Whys, How Might We, comparison matrices, angle variation, and stress-testing. Use this skill when brainstorming project ideas, refining vague concepts, comparing competing directions, or stress-testing an idea before committing. Trigger on: "brainstorm", "ideate", "refine my idea", "compare ideas", "stress-test", "I have a vague idea", "help me think through", "which idea is better", or any variation of creative exploration before building.
From cksnpx claudepluginhub cardinalconseils/claude-starter --plugin cksThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
workflows/ideate.mdDesigns and optimizes AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, observation formats, error recovery, and context for higher task completion rates.
Enables AI agents to execute x402 payments with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets via MCP tools. Use when agents pay for APIs, services, or other agents.
Compares coding agents like Claude Code and Aider on custom YAML-defined codebase tasks using git worktrees, measuring pass rate, cost, time, and consistency.
This skill is loaded into ideation agents via the skills: ideation frontmatter field.
It provides domain expertise about brainstorming frameworks and creative techniques —
not execution instructions. Agents read workflow files in workflows/ for step-by-step
process via progressive disclosure.
Helps users who have a vague concept, a problem without a solution, multiple competing ideas, or an idea they want to stress-test. Produces a refined, validated pitch ready for structured intake or implementation planning.
Best for: User has something but needs to expand, twist, or reframe it.
| Letter | Technique | Prompt Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Substitute | Replace a core element | "What if you replaced {X} with {Y}?" |
| Combine | Merge with adjacent domain | "What if you merged this with {Z}?" |
| Adapt | Borrow from another field | "What existing solution in {field} could you adapt?" |
| Modify | Change scale, audience, delivery | "What if this served {different audience}?" |
| Put to another use | Adjacent markets | "What other market could use exactly this?" |
| Eliminate | Remove complexity | "What if you removed the hardest part — what's left?" |
| Reverse | Flip relationships | "What if the user/provider roles were swapped?" |
Pick 3-4 lenses most relevant to the specific idea. Don't run all 7 mechanically.
Best for: User has a pain point but no clear product concept.
5 Whys: Drill from symptom to root cause. Ask "Why?" iteratively (3-5 rounds). Stop when you reach a cause that's actionable — not every chain needs all 5.
How Might We (HMW): Convert each root cause into a design challenge:
Best for: User has 2-4 ideas and can't choose.
Score each idea on 5 dimensions (1-3 stars):
Present as a matrix. Commentary matters more than scores — explain why each score.
Best for: User has multiple disconnected thoughts, notes, or fragments they've collected and needs help making sense of them as a coherent project direction.
Process:
Key principle: The user's scattered ideas often contain a hidden coherent vision. Your job is to surface it, not impose your own. Ask "Is this what you've been thinking?" not "Here's what you should think."
Best for: User wants to build something but has no starting point.
Seed generation strategy:
After a direction is chosen, always generate three angles to prevent premature commitment:
| Angle | Philosophy | Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|
| Safe Bet | Most straightforward interpretation, lowest risk, fastest to build | Low risk, potentially lower differentiation |
| Ambitious Play | Full vision, maximum differentiation, bigger bet | Higher risk, higher potential upside |
| Lean Experiment | Smallest testable version, fastest to validate with real users | Lowest investment, fastest learning |
The user's choice of angle signals their risk appetite and informs downstream decisions (MVP scope, tech stack complexity, launch strategy).
Every idea should survive basic scrutiny before entering intake. Four key probes:
Adapt probes based on context — skip obvious ones, dig deeper on weak spots.
Ideation output always includes:
| Anti-Pattern | Why It's Wrong | Do This Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Picking a direction for the user | Kills ownership and may miss their real intent | Always present options, let them choose |
| Running all frameworks mechanically | Feels like a checklist, not a conversation | Pick the right framework for the situation |
| Skipping stress-testing | Produces ideas that fall apart at intake | Always probe, even if the idea seems strong |
| Over-refining in ideation | Ideation produces a pitch, not a PRD | Stop at the pitch — intake handles the detail |
| Ignoring "none of the above" | The best idea might not be in your suggestions | Always leave room for user's own direction |
| File | When to Read |
|---|---|
workflows/ideate.md | Step-by-step ideation execution process |
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The idea is obvious, let's just build it" | Obvious ideas have non-obvious failure modes. 20 minutes of stress-testing saves weeks of pivoting. |
| "We don't need multiple angles" | Single-angle thinking produces single-point-of-failure ideas. Always explore at least 3 angles. |
| "Brainstorming frameworks are overkill" | Frameworks prevent anchoring bias. Without structure, you optimize the first idea instead of exploring. |