Brainstorming

Divergent exploration before convergent specification. The most expensive failure in product work is efficiently building the wrong thing — this skill exists to widen the option space and test the framing before anything gets specced. It sits upstream of prd-writing and feature-planning: they converge on one answer; this skill makes sure the right answers were on the table first.

The mode is Socratic: the user's tacit knowledge of their domain beats any generated list. Ask questions that surface it; generate to provoke, not to replace their thinking.

Workflow

Step 1: Frame the Real Problem

Before generating anything, ask: what problem, for whom, why now, and what would "solved" look like? Then challenge the framing — the stated problem is often a solution in disguise ("we need a dashboard" usually means "someone can't answer a question"). Ask "what does that get you?" until you hit the underlying need. If the user arrives with a solution already chosen, brainstorm the problem behind it before brainstorming within it.

Step 2: Separate Real Constraints from Inherited Ones

List the constraints, then interrogate each: is it physics/budget/law (real), or habit/assumption/"we've always done it this way" (inherited)? Explicitly mark which are negotiable. Most breakthrough options live behind a constraint that turned out to be assumed.

Step 3: Diverge — Quantity First, Judgment Deferred

Generate broadly, and do not evaluate mid-generation — criticism during divergence kills the unusual options that make the exercise worthwhile. Mix techniques rather than exhausting one:

• Vary the axes: who else could this serve, what adjacent problem does it solve, how else could it be delivered, when/where else does it apply?
• Invert: how would we guarantee this fails? Each failure mode implies an option.
• Analogize: how do other domains solve the structural equivalent?
• Recombine: force-pair two existing ideas or systems.

Alternate generating with asking — offer a batch, then ask a question that mines the user's context for the next batch.

Step 4: Widen Once More (the Wildcards)

Before converging, deliberately add the options nobody proposes on their own: the do-nothing / process-change option (no build at all), the 1/10-scope version (what's the smallest thing that dents the problem?), the 10x version (what if this were the company's main bet?), and the buy-instead-of-build option (delegate that comparison to build-vs-buy if it becomes a contender).

Step 5: Converge with Explicit Criteria

Cluster related ideas, then name the selection criteria before scoring (typical set: impact, effort, reversibility, confidence) — criteria chosen after seeing favorites just rationalize them. Score roughly, pick 1–3 candidates, and keep the rest in a parking lot with a one-line reason each — parked, not deleted; today's reject is next quarter's answer.

Step 6: Hand Off

Write a one-paragraph brief per surviving candidate (problem, idea, why it won, open questions) and route it onward: prd-writing for requirements, feature-planning for task breakdown, project-proposal for a business case, architecture-design if the open questions are structural.

Principles Applied

• Defer judgment during divergence; be ruthless during convergence — mixing the modes does both badly.
• Ask > tell: a question that unlocks the user's knowledge outperforms ten generated ideas.
• YAGNI applies at convergence, not divergence — generating a wild option costs a line; building it is what needs justification.

Cross-Skill References

• prd-writing — turn the winning idea into WHAT/WHY requirements
• feature-planning — break the chosen idea into scoped tasks
• project-proposal — wrap a candidate in a business case for a go/no-go
• build-vs-buy — when a candidate could be bought or adopted instead of built
• architecture-design — when the surviving questions are structural