Think-Brainstorm - Divergent Idea Generation
Generates candidate approaches for achieving a goal. Uses parallel brainstormers each applying a different technique in isolation (to avoid anchoring), then synthesizes the pool into a catalog of ideas. The skill is purely generative — evaluation, choice, and critique belong to /think-deliberate and /think-scrutinize.
This skill produces no tangible artifacts. It is a consultant, not an implementer. No code, no tickets, no commits. The output is a structured catalog of ideas the user can pick from.
Roles
Judge (you, running this skill):
- Capture the goal in a written brief
- Validate the assumptions embedded in the goal
- Choose appropriate brainstorming techniques
- Spawn brainstormers and synthesize the exchange into a report
Brainstormers: Each receives a specific technique (first-principles, working-backwards, lateral, analogical, constraints-shift, worst-possible-idea, six-hats-green, SCAMPER) and generates ideas within that mode, in isolation from other brainstormers.
Workflow
1. Receive the Goal
The goal may arrive as:
- Conversation context — summarize it back, confirm
- A document — read the file (problem statement, project brief, design goal)
- Fresh user input — capture it verbatim
Produce a written brief of the goal as you understand it. Brainstormers operate on this brief. Ambiguity here corrupts everything downstream.
2. Validate Assumptions
This is a dedicated phase, not opportunistic. Before any generation, extract the assumptions the goal depends on — both stated and unstated — and validate them with the user.
Look for:
- Problem-framing assumptions: does the user assume X is the real problem? (Example: "migrate monolith to microservices" assumes the monolith is the problem. Maybe one hot table is the actual pain.)
- Solution-space assumptions: does the goal presuppose a class of solution? (Example: "pick a job queue" assumes we need a job queue; maybe we need no queue at all.)
- Constraint assumptions: what constraints are treated as fixed that might be negotiable?
- Success-criteria assumptions: how will we know we succeeded? Is that actually what the user wants?
Present findings to the user. For each assumption, ask: is this correct, negotiable, or wrong? Update the goal brief based on responses.
Sometimes this phase alone dissolves or reframes the problem. That's a valuable outcome — better to stop here than brainstorm solutions to the wrong problem. If the user wants to proceed anyway, proceed with the refined brief.
3. Choose Techniques
Select 3-6 techniques from the palette based on the goal's shape. The orchestrator decides autonomously — the user does not pick techniques.
Available techniques:
- first-principles — strip to irreducible requirements, reason up
- working-backwards — imagine success, trace paths back
- lateral — random entry + provocation; deliberately break conventional thought
- analogical — structural analogies from unrelated domains (biomimicry, cross-industry, mathematical)
- constraints-shift — force the goal through artificial constraints (10x budget, ship tomorrow, forbid the obvious tool)
- worst-possible-idea — generate bad ideas, invert them
- six-hats-green — de Bono's creative hat; pure generative mode
- SCAMPER — only when refining an existing solution; applies each verb (substitute, combine, adapt, etc.)
Selection heuristics:
- Greenfield goal? Skip SCAMPER.
- Goal with a natural-world analog? Include analogical.
- Goal constrained by conventional thinking? Include lateral.
- Goal with clear end-state? Include working-backwards.
- Goal with questionable fundamentals? Include first-principles.
- No obvious analog, established domain? Skip analogical.
Irrelevant techniques are dropped, not forced. Better 3 fitted techniques than 7 forced ones.
4. Spawn Brainstormers (Parallel, Isolated)
Spawn one THK - Brainstormer agent per chosen technique, in parallel. Each receives:
- The written goal brief (from step 1, refined in step 2)
- Its assigned technique
- Validated assumptions and relevant context
- Instruction to generate 5-10 ideas with rationale
No cross-talk between brainstormers. This is the Nominal Group Technique principle — independent generation first, pooling second. Isolated brainstormers produce more diverse output than coordinated ones (research-backed: open brainstorming anchors on early ideas).
Collect all idea sets.
5. Synthesize
Combine the isolated idea sets into a coherent catalog:
5a. Deduplicate — when multiple techniques produced structurally the same idea, merge them (preserve technique attribution from all contributors — that's signal: multiple angles landed here).
5b. Cluster — group related ideas by theme or approach. The clusters are often more interesting than individual ideas.
5c. Construct hybrids — look for cross-technique combinations where two ideas together are stronger than either alone. Example: a first-principles rethink combined with an analogical example that shows how it's been done elsewhere. Flag hybrids as constructed (the orchestrator's contribution, not any single agent's).
5d. Surface standouts — identify the 3-7 most interesting ideas across axes:
- Novel — unexpected, breaks conventional framing
- Promising — plausible high impact on the goal
- Counterintuitive — worth a second look even if it sounds wrong
5e. Drop weak ideas — ideas that fall apart under basic scrutiny don't belong in the catalog. Don't evaluate rigorously (that's /think-scrutinize), but don't pad either.
5f. Note raised questions — the brainstorming exercise often surfaces questions the user hadn't considered. These are frequently the real insight.
6. Report
Final report format:
## Brainstorm Report
**Goal:** [one-line clarified goal]
**Techniques applied:** [list]
### Validated Assumptions
- [Assumption] — [user's response: confirmed / revised / discarded]
### Standouts
[3-7 most promising/novel/counterintuitive ideas — no technique attribution.
Each stands on its merit.]
1. **[Name]** — [description]
Why it's a standout: [novel / promising / counterintuitive and why]
### Hybrid Ideas
[Cross-technique combinations the orchestrator constructed. Flag as
synthesized, not generated. Each names the parent techniques.]
- **[Hybrid name]** — [description]
Combines: [technique A's idea] + [technique B's idea]
Why the combination matters: [brief rationale]
### Other Reasonable Ideas
[Remaining ideas worth keeping, clustered by theme. Technique attribution
included in the catalog for transparency.]
**Cluster: [theme]**
- [idea] *(first-principles)*
- [idea] *(lateral)*
...
**Cluster: [theme]**
- ...
### Questions the Exercise Raised
[Often the real insight — questions about the goal, the constraints, the
problem framing that emerged through generation.]
### Suggested Next Steps
- To choose among standouts: `/think-deliberate`
- To stress-test a promising idea: `/think-scrutinize`
- To refine the goal and re-brainstorm: re-invoke `/think-brainstorm`7. No Iteration
This skill is one-shot. If the user wants to go deeper on a specific direction, they refine the goal and re-invoke. If they want to choose between standouts, they hand off to /think-deliberate. If they want to stress-test one, /think-scrutinize. Each invocation is a clean consultation.
Constraints
- No artifacts. No code, tickets, commits, or documents.
- Isolated generation. Brainstormers do not see each other's output.
- Technique fit > technique count. Drop techniques that don't fit the goal.
- Generation, not evaluation. Surface standouts by axis, don't rank or pick.
- Honest "technique produced little" is a valid brainstormer outcome.
When to Use
Good fit:
- Early-stage explorat