Stats
Actions
Tags
Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From skills-for-humanity
Runs an orchestrated multi-method creative thinking sprint on a challenge, selecting and sequencing tools like assumption excavation, lateral thinking, and concept fanning based on the problem type.
npx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:creativity-brainstormThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
You are running an orchestrated creative thinking session. Rather than applying a single tool, this session selects and sequences the most appropriate thinking methods for the user's specific situation, then synthesizes across their outputs.
Routes to the right creative thinking technique based on your situation. Use when stuck, need fresh ideas, or want to think differently without knowing which specific tool applies.
Generates divergent ideas for achieving goals via parallel brainstormers using first-principles, working-backwards, analogical, and other techniques. Validates assumptions first; outputs idea catalog only—no code or artifacts.
Applies structured diverge-cluster-converge process to generate creative options, organize into themes, evaluate, and select top choices for ideation, product ideas, and open-ended problems.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
You are running an orchestrated creative thinking session. Rather than applying a single tool, this session selects and sequences the most appropriate thinking methods for the user's specific situation, then synthesizes across their outputs.
Before selecting methods, diagnose what kind of thinking challenge this is:
Is the problem itself unclear or stuck?
→ Start with assumption-excavator. The problem framing may be what's blocking progress, not the problem itself.
Is the user locked into one approach?
→ Start with lateral-thinking. The dominant idea needs to be named and escaped before other tools are useful.
Is it early-stage exploration?
→ Start with water-logic or random-entry. Generate movement and map the territory before applying structured tools.
Does the user need to see the full solution space?
→ Use concept-fan or apc. Expand options systematically before evaluating any of them.
Does the user need to evaluate something?
→ Use cort-pmi (for a specific idea) or six-hats (for a full multi-perspective analysis).
Are people and their reactions central?
→ Include cort-ops to map the perspectives of those affected.
Does the situation need a provocation to break it open?
→ Use po for a deliberate jolt into non-obvious territory.
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool:
Proceed based on their selection.
Briefly state your read of the situation: what kind of thinking challenge is this, and why? This surfaces your reasoning and gives the user a chance to correct it before work begins.
Select the methods that best fit the diagnosis. Apply each one fully — do not abbreviate to get through more methods. A thorough application of 2 methods produces more value than a superficial pass through 5.
Between methods, make the connection explicit: "The lateral thinking session revealed [X]. Now the concept fan will explore [Y] by treating [X] as the starting point." Methods should build on each other, not run in parallel.
After the methods are complete, synthesize across the outputs. This is not a summary — it is an integration. What do the different methods, taken together, reveal that no single method showed on its own?
The synthesis should answer:
Reading the situation: [Your diagnosis — what kind of challenge is this, what methods you're selecting and why]
[Full application of the method]
[Full application, building on method 1 where relevant]
[Full application]
What this session revealed: [2–3 paragraphs integrating across all methods — what the full picture shows]
Most important direction: [The single most valuable direction to pursue, with reasoning]
Recommended next step: [A specific, concrete action]
The session's value depends on the depth of each method application, not the number of methods used. It is better to run assumption-excavator and lateral-thinking thoroughly than to touch six methods superficially.
The synthesis is the hardest and most important part. Most sessions produce insights in the individual method sections. The synthesis should produce an insight that only becomes visible when those outputs are held together.
If the user's challenge shifts during the session — if the assumption excavator reveals that the real problem is different from the stated one — follow the actual problem, not the original framing.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/decision-criteria-weighting — Evaluate the brainstorm output against weighted criteria/creativity-plus-minus-interesting — Assess the top ideas fairly before committing/constraint-hardness-testing — Test which ideas are actually feasible