# Creative Problem Solving

> Use a full creative problem-solving process when the task needs more than one tactic and must move through framing, divergence, selection, and next-step action. Use when the problem is important enough to need an end-to-end guided workflow rather than a single method.

- Skill: `alubiama/creative-problem-solving` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add alubiama/creative-problem-solving`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/alubiama/creative-problem-solving/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Productivity
- Author: Alubiama (https://skillmd.com/u/alubiama)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/alubiama/creative-problem-solving

---


# Creative Problem Solving

## Goal

Move a meaningful problem through a full creative workflow from problem framing to actionable next step.

The job of this skill is not to replace every specialized method. The job is to provide a disciplined end-to-end process when the work needs coordinated framing, idea generation, selection, and action.

This skill orchestrates a sequence. It does not replace the selector when method choice is unclear, and it does not claim the selected direction is validated unless evidence is explicitly provided.

## Default Posture

- frame before ideate
- diverge before converge
- select before polish
- action before theory sprawl
- use the minimum useful process

## When To Use

Run this skill when:

- one method is not enough for the task
- the problem needs a guided process from ambiguity to action
- the team needs both option generation and disciplined narrowing
- a series of creative steps must be coordinated
- the user needs a practical workflow, not only a single insight

This is a strong next step after:

- `creative-method-selector` routes to `need_full_process`
- multiple methods are clearly needed in sequence
- earlier methods produced useful material that still needs synthesis and selection

## Scope Boundaries

In scope:

- structure work across framing, divergence, convergence, and action
- decide when to invoke a child method
- keep the process moving toward a real next step
- reduce idea sprawl into a small candidate set

Out of scope by default:

- replacing the selector when method choice is still unclear
- exhaustive facilitation playbooks
- pretending convergence equals validation
- keeping every generated idea alive

## Escalation Conditions

Pause and keep uncertainty explicit when:

- the challenge is still too vague for a staged process
- one child method would clearly solve the task faster
- the process expands but candidate quality does not improve
- convergence cannot justify why one direction should lead

If process value remains low after one pass, recommend returning to `creative-method-selector` or using a narrower child skill directly.

## CPS Workflow

1. Clarify the challenge in one actionable sentence.
2. Identify what is known, assumed, and missing.
3. Choose the minimum sequence of child methods needed.
4. Run divergence with one suitable ideation method.
5. Cluster and reduce options into a small candidate set.
6. Apply a simple convergence screen:
   - fit to the real problem
   - leverage or value
   - feasibility of next test
   - major risk or downside
7. Select the strongest next candidate or pair.
8. Recommend the immediate next action, test, or escalation path.

## Process Heuristics

Prefer:

- `jtbd` first when the challenge is still fuzzy
- `scamper` when a baseline exists and options are needed
- `lateral-thinking` when the team is stuck in similar ideas
- `triz` when narrowing reveals a real contradiction
- `systems-thinking` when candidate ideas have cross-system effects

Prefer the smallest staged path that can still produce a decision.

## Core Questions

Use the minimum set needed:

- What problem are we actually solving?
- What is missing before good ideas can emerge?
- Which child method should lead this phase?
- Which ideas are genuinely different?
- Which option best deserves the next test?
- What should happen immediately after this session?

## Output Contract

Always return:

1. `challenge_statement`
2. `process_stage_map`
3. `selected_child_methods`
4. `knowns_and_assumptions`
5. `candidate_directions`
6. `screening_logic`
7. `selected_direction`
8. `evidence_status` (`provided`, `inferred`, `mixed`)
9. `open_unknowns`
10. `recommended_followup` (`creative-problem-solving`, `jtbd`, `scamper`, `lateral-thinking`, `triz`, `systems-thinking`, `selector`, `validation`)
11. `next_action`

## Good CPS Signals

Strong signals:

- the task needs more than one creative phase
- a process is needed to go from ambiguity to decision
- earlier methods produced material that must be synthesized
- the team risks either endless ideation or premature narrowing

Weak signals:

- one clear method would solve the task faster
- the challenge is still too vague for a process
- the work only needs a single contradiction pass
- the process itself is becoming heavier than the problem

## Guardrails

- Do not use the full process when one method is enough.
- Do not skip framing and jump straight into idea volume.
- Do not keep too many candidates alive.
- Distinguish evidence from inference.
- If the right child method is still unclear, return to `creative-method-selector`.
- Prefer a smaller finished process over a grand unfinished one.
- If the process does not improve decision quality, stop and narrow the method stack.

## Anti-Patterns

Watch for these failure modes:

- process theater
- endless divergence with no convergence
- premature convergence before distinct options exist
- selecting by taste instead of screen logic
- using all child methods whether needed or not
- ending with no next action

## Example

User request:

`We need a better direction for our onboarding, and we keep bouncing between too many half-formed ideas.`

Expected shape of response:

1. `challenge_statement`: find a higher-confidence onboarding direction without staying trapped in idea sprawl
2. `process_stage_map`: framing -> divergence -> convergence -> next test
3. `selected_child_methods`: `jtbd -> lateral-thinking -> scamper`
4. `knowns_and_assumptions`: users need confidence early; current ideas are too similar; real drop-off points are partly inferred
5. `candidate_directions`: start-before-teaching path, adaptive guidance path, pantry-style task-first onboarding path
6. `screening_logic`: fit to user confidence job, distinctness from current flow, simplicity of next experiment, risk of added complexity
7. `selected_direction`: adaptive guidance path
8. `evidence_status`: `mixed`
9. `open_unknowns`: which user segments need depth, where confidence actually forms, how much extra logic is operationally acceptable
10. `recommended_followup`: `validation`
11. `next_action`: prototype the adaptive path and compare it against the current onboarding flow