---
name: strategy
description: Run structured brainstorming sessions (divergent/convergent), improve prompts with 7-dimension framework, and apply decision frameworks (RICE, weighted scoring, first principles, pre-mortem).
triggers:
- brainstorm ideas
- run an ideation session
- improve a prompt
- write a better prompt
- make decisions
- strategic thinking
- how to decide between options
- prompt engineering
- structured thinking
negatives:
- creative direction (use brand-design skill)
- content strategy (use content-marketing)
- personal coaching
- simple yes/no decisions without tradeoffs
- design feedback or visual critique
license: MIT
compatibility: opencode
metadata:
workflow: strategy
audience: developers
version: "3.0.0"
Strategy
Structured thinking for brainstorming, prompt engineering, and decision making.
Workflow
Step 1: Intake & Framing
Extract the user's core need and classify it into one of three tracks:
| Track |
Trigger |
Output |
| Decision |
"Should I...", "Which option...", "Help me choose..." |
Scored recommendation with rationale and runner-up tradeoff |
| Ideation |
"Brainstorm...", "Generate ideas for...", "What are ways to..." |
Prioritized list of ideas with convergent selection |
| Clarity |
"How do I think about...", "Improve this prompt", "Reframe..." |
Restructured framing, 7-dimension prompt, or first-principles breakdown |
If the user's need spans multiple tracks, run them sequentially: Clarity → Ideation → Decision.
Step 2: Select Framework
For Decision track: Choose ICE if speed matters, Impact/Effort matrix if resources are constrained, First Principles if the problem feels stuck or assumed, Pre-Mortem if the decision is high-stakes and irreversible.
For Ideation track: Start with brainwriting (quantity). If ideas stall, inject SCAMPER or reverse brainstorming. Never open with free association for groups of 3+ — dominant voices take over.
For Clarity track: Run the 7-dimension prompt diagnosis. Identify which dimensions are weak (0-3 on a 1-10 scale). Rewrite the prompt addressing the weakest dimensions first.
Step 3: Execute Framework
Follow the framework protocol from its dedicated section below. Timebox strictly:
- Decision: 20 min (5 min framing, 10 min scoring, 5 min decision)
- Ideation: 60 min (divergent 30 min, cluster 10 min, convergent 20 min)
- Clarity: 10 min (diagnose 3 min, rewrite 5 min, changelog 2 min)
Step 4: Document & Deliver
Every strategy output must include:
- The chosen framework and why it was selected
- The raw output (scores, ideas, rewritten prompt)
- One recommended action with owner + next step + deadline
- One explicitly rejected alternative and the reason
Step 5: Verify Against Production Checklist
Run the Production Checklist before delivering. If any item is unchecked, return to the relevant step. Never deliver a strategy artifact that skips convergent selection or lacks a specified output format.
Brainstorming
1. Process
- Divergent (generate, no judgment) — 15-30 min
- Clustering (organize, group, eliminate) — 10-15 min
- Convergent (select, vote, prioritize) — 15-20 min
Never mix divergent and convergent — judgment kills ideas before they form.
2. Divergent Techniques
| Technique |
How |
Best for |
| Free association |
Write everything, no filter |
Warm-up, quantity |
| Brainwriting 6-3-5 |
6 people write 3 ideas in 5 min, pass |
Avoiding dominant voices |
| Reverse brainstorming |
How to make it worse? Then reverse. |
Breaking assumptions |
| Random word |
Random noun → force connections |
Lateral thinking |
| SCAMPER |
Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to use, Eliminate, Reverse |
Systematic exploration |
| HMW |
Reframe as "How Might We" questions |
Design thinking |
| Worst idea |
Generate terrible ideas, then invert |
Reducing fear |
3. Convergent Techniques
| Technique |
How |
| Dot voting |
3-5 votes per person |
| Impact/effort matrix |
X: impact, Y: effort |
| ICE scoring |
Impact, Confidence, Ease (1-10, average) |
| NUF test |
New, Useful, Feasible (1-10 each) |
4. Session Template
| Phase |
Duration |
Activity |
| Problem framing |
10 min |
Define "How might we..." question |
| Warm-up |
5 min |
Low-stakes exercise |
| Divergent round 1 |
15 min |
Brainwriting. Target: 30+ ideas |
| Cluster |
10 min |
Affinity mapping |
| Divergent round 2 |
10 min |
SCAMPER on strongest clusters |
| Convergent |
15 min |
Impact/effort matrix. Top 3-5 |
| Action planning |
10 min |
Owner, next step, deadline |
5. Session Ground Rules
- Defer judgment. Go for quantity (set targets: "50 ideas in 20 min")
- One conversation at a time. Build on "Yes, and..."
- Encourage wild ideas. Round-robin or brainwriting.
- Hard stop at 90 min.
Decision Frameworks
ICE Scoring
Score = Impact (1-10) × Confidence (1-10) × Ease (1-10)
Higher = prioritize first
Impact/Effort Matrix
High Impact Low Impact
Low Effort → Do First → Quick Wins
High Effort → Strategic → Don't Do
First Principles Thinking
- Identify the current belief/assumption
- Break it down into fundamental truths
- Rebuild from those truths
Current: "Our testing takes too long to run"
Deconstruction: What IS testing? Verifying code behavior.
Fundamental: We need confidence code works. Speed matters but accuracy matters more.
Rebuild: What's the fastest way to get accuracy confidence? Change test scope to integration-focused.
Pre-Mortem Analysis
Before starting a project, imagine it failed 6 months from now:
- What went wrong? (list 5-10 failure modes)
- For each, what's the probability? (low/medium/high)
- For each, what's the impact? (minor/major/critical)
- Mitigation: What can we do NOW to prevent it?
Opportunity Cost
Choosing Option A means NOT choosing Options B-Z.
Before committing, list: What else could these resources do?
Prompt Engineering
The 7 Dimensions
- Clarity — Remove ambiguity. Every noun and verb should have one interpretation.
- Specificity — Replace vague language with concrete details. Use names, paths, numbers.
- Constraints — Technology, resource, time, compliance hard boundaries.
- Format — Bullet list, table, code block, JSON, Mermaid. Tell the model how to answer.
- Examples — One example is worth 100 words of description.
- Tone — Internal message (direct), client email (professional-cordial), docs (neutral-precise), bug report (factual-minimal).
- Iteration Signal — "Start here, refine later" vs "Production-ready" vs "Give me options" vs "Just the code"
Enhancement Workflow
- Diagnose: Run through 7 dimensions — identify which are weak or missing
- Rewrite: Complete rewrite, don't annotate original
- Changelog: 1-2 bullet points per dimension improved
Specificity Table
| Vague |
Specific |
| "help with this code" |
"refactor auth middleware in src/middleware/auth.ts" |
| "some options" |
"exactly 3 options ranked by cost" |
| "make it better" |
"improve load time from 3s to <1s on mobile Chrome" |
| "explain" |
"explain in 3 bullet points to a junior dev" |
Error Handling
| Error |
Cause |
Resolution |
| Session runs over 90 min |
Poor timeboxing |
Assign a timer. Hard stop at 90 min regardless of progress |
| Dominant voice dominates |
No facilitation structure |
Switch to brainwriting or round-robin. No open floor until last 10 min |
| Ideas too similar / not novel |
Groupthink |
Insert reverse brainstorming or random-word technique mid-session |
| No clear decision after convergent phase |
Tie votes |
Use ICE scoring as tiebreaker. Default to impact if still tied |
| Prompt still produces bad output after rewrite |
Diagnosed wrong dimension |
Re-run 7-dimension check. Most often: missing constraint or missing example |
| "I don't have ideas" block |
Blank-page problem |
Use worst-idea technique or reverse brainstorming to unstick |
Production Checklist
Before delivering a strategy artifact (session output, prompt, decision document):
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern |
Why It Fails |
Correction |
| Mixed divergent and convergent |
Judgment kills idea generation before it starts |
Separate phases with a break. No "yes but" during divergent |
| No warm-up |
Cold start produces safe, boring ideas |
Always do 5-min warm-up (e.g. "ideas for improving a paperclip") |
| Dominant voices take over |
Junior or quiet team members disengage |
Use brainwriting, round-robin. No open discussion until convergent |
| Too many people (8+) |
Diffusion of responsibility, not enough airtime |
4-8 max per session. Split into parallel groups if larger team |
| No follow-through |
Great ideas die after the session |
Assign ownership, next step, and deadline before closing |
| Prompt too short (<10 words) |
Model fills gaps with wrong assumptions |
Expand to cover context, constraint, format, and example |
| Compound request |
Model optimizes for first instruction only |
Split into separate prompts or use numbered list with weighting |
| No output format |
Model chooses — rarely the most useful one |
Always specify format (JSON, table, bullet list, code block) |
| Using ICE without confidence check |
False precision — confidence is often guessed |
Calibrate confidence: "how sure are you on a 1-10?" and average across 3 people |
| Skipping opportunity cost |
Overcommit to first good option |
Before finalizing, ask: "What else could these resources do?" |
Advanced Decision Frameworks
RICE Scoring
Score features: Score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort
- Reach: how many users affected (1-1000+)
- Impact: 0.25 (minimal), 0.5 (low), 1 (medium), 2 (high), 3 (massive)
- Confidence: 20% (gut), 50% (some data), 80% (quantified), 100% (A/B tested)
- Effort: person-months
Kano Model
Classify features: Basic (expected, absence = dissatisfaction), Performance (more = better), Delighter (unexpected, absence = neutral). Prioritize: Basic → Performance → Delighter.
OKR-to-Task Decomposition
- Objective: qualitative, inspiring, time-bound (quarter)
- Key Results: 3-5 quantitative outcomes
- Tasks: decompose each KR into 2-3 actionable tasks per week
Sources
- Alex Osborn "Applied Imagination"
- IDEO design thinking
- d.school Stanford facilitation guides
- Jake Knapp "Sprint"
- Annie Duke "Thinking in Bets"
- First Principles (Elon Musk / Richard Feynman approach)
- Fermi Estimation techniques
Checklist
1---2name: strategy3description: ---4---5---6name: strategy7description: Run structured brainstorming sessions (divergent/convergent), improve prompts with 7-dimension framework, and apply decision frameworks (RICE, weighted scoring, first principles, pre-mortem).8triggers:9 - brainstorm ideas10 - run an ideation session11 - improve a prompt12 - write a better prompt13 - make decisions14 - strategic thinking15 - how to decide between options16 - prompt engineering17 - structured thinking18negatives:19 - creative direction (use brand-design skill)20 - content strategy (use content-marketing)21 - personal coaching22 - simple yes/no decisions without tradeoffs23 - design feedback or visual critique24license: MIT25compatibility: opencode26metadata:27 workflow: strategy28 audience: developers29 version: "3.0.0"30---313233# Strategy3435Structured thinking for brainstorming, prompt engineering, and decision making.3637## Workflow3839### Step 1: Intake & Framing4041Extract the user's core need and classify it into one of three tracks:4243| Track | Trigger | Output |44|-------|---------|--------|45| **Decision** | "Should I...", "Which option...", "Help me choose..." | Scored recommendation with rationale and runner-up tradeoff |46| **Ideation** | "Brainstorm...", "Generate ideas for...", "What are ways to..." | Prioritized list of ideas with convergent selection |47| **Clarity** | "How do I think about...", "Improve this prompt", "Reframe..." | Restructured framing, 7-dimension prompt, or first-principles breakdown |4849If the user's need spans multiple tracks, run them sequentially: Clarity → Ideation → Decision.5051### Step 2: Select Framework5253For **Decision** track: Choose ICE if speed matters, Impact/Effort matrix if resources are constrained, First Principles if the problem feels stuck or assumed, Pre-Mortem if the decision is high-stakes and irreversible.5455For **Ideation** track: Start with brainwriting (quantity). If ideas stall, inject SCAMPER or reverse brainstorming. Never open with free association for groups of 3+ — dominant voices take over.5657For **Clarity** track: Run the 7-dimension prompt diagnosis. Identify which dimensions are weak (0-3 on a 1-10 scale). Rewrite the prompt addressing the weakest dimensions first.5859### Step 3: Execute Framework6061Follow the framework protocol from its dedicated section below. Timebox strictly:62- Decision: 20 min (5 min framing, 10 min scoring, 5 min decision)63- Ideation: 60 min (divergent 30 min, cluster 10 min, convergent 20 min)64- Clarity: 10 min (diagnose 3 min, rewrite 5 min, changelog 2 min)6566### Step 4: Document & Deliver6768Every strategy output must include:69- The chosen framework and why it was selected70- The raw output (scores, ideas, rewritten prompt)71- One recommended action with owner + next step + deadline72- One explicitly rejected alternative and the reason7374### Step 5: Verify Against Production Checklist7576Run the Production Checklist before delivering. If any item is unchecked, return to the relevant step. Never deliver a strategy artifact that skips convergent selection or lacks a specified output format.7778## Brainstorming7980### 1. Process81821. **Divergent** (generate, no judgment) — 15-30 min832. **Clustering** (organize, group, eliminate) — 10-15 min843. **Convergent** (select, vote, prioritize) — 15-20 min8586Never mix divergent and convergent — judgment kills ideas before they form.8788### 2. Divergent Techniques8990| Technique | How | Best for |91|-----------|-----|----------|92| Free association | Write everything, no filter | Warm-up, quantity |93| Brainwriting 6-3-5 | 6 people write 3 ideas in 5 min, pass | Avoiding dominant voices |94| Reverse brainstorming | How to make it worse? Then reverse. | Breaking assumptions |95| Random word | Random noun → force connections | Lateral thinking |96| SCAMPER | Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to use, Eliminate, Reverse | Systematic exploration |97| HMW | Reframe as "How Might We" questions | Design thinking |98| Worst idea | Generate terrible ideas, then invert | Reducing fear |99100### 3. Convergent Techniques101102| Technique | How |103|-----------|-----|104| Dot voting | 3-5 votes per person |105| Impact/effort matrix | X: impact, Y: effort |106| ICE scoring | Impact, Confidence, Ease (1-10, average) |107| NUF test | New, Useful, Feasible (1-10 each) |108109### 4. Session Template110111| Phase | Duration | Activity |112|-------|----------|----------|113| Problem framing | 10 min | Define "How might we..." question |114| Warm-up | 5 min | Low-stakes exercise |115| Divergent round 1 | 15 min | Brainwriting. Target: 30+ ideas |116| Cluster | 10 min | Affinity mapping |117| Divergent round 2 | 10 min | SCAMPER on strongest clusters |118| Convergent | 15 min | Impact/effort matrix. Top 3-5 |119| Action planning | 10 min | Owner, next step, deadline |120121### 5. Session Ground Rules122123- Defer judgment. Go for quantity (set targets: "50 ideas in 20 min")124- One conversation at a time. Build on "Yes, and..."125- Encourage wild ideas. Round-robin or brainwriting.126- Hard stop at 90 min.127128## Decision Frameworks129130### ICE Scoring131132```133Score = Impact (1-10) × Confidence (1-10) × Ease (1-10)134Higher = prioritize first135```136137### Impact/Effort Matrix138139```140 High Impact Low Impact141Low Effort → Do First → Quick Wins142High Effort → Strategic → Don't Do143```144145### First Principles Thinking1461471. Identify the current belief/assumption1482. Break it down into fundamental truths1493. Rebuild from those truths150151```152Current: "Our testing takes too long to run"153Deconstruction: What IS testing? Verifying code behavior.154Fundamental: We need confidence code works. Speed matters but accuracy matters more.155Rebuild: What's the fastest way to get accuracy confidence? Change test scope to integration-focused.156```157158### Pre-Mortem Analysis159160Before starting a project, imagine it failed 6 months from now:1611. What went wrong? (list 5-10 failure modes)1622. For each, what's the probability? (low/medium/high)1633. For each, what's the impact? (minor/major/critical)1644. Mitigation: What can we do NOW to prevent it?165166### Opportunity Cost167168```169Choosing Option A means NOT choosing Options B-Z.170Before committing, list: What else could these resources do?171```172173## Prompt Engineering174175### The 7 Dimensions1761771. **Clarity** — Remove ambiguity. Every noun and verb should have one interpretation.1782. **Specificity** — Replace vague language with concrete details. Use names, paths, numbers.1793. **Constraints** — Technology, resource, time, compliance hard boundaries.1804. **Format** — Bullet list, table, code block, JSON, Mermaid. Tell the model *how* to answer.1815. **Examples** — One example is worth 100 words of description.1826. **Tone** — Internal message (direct), client email (professional-cordial), docs (neutral-precise), bug report (factual-minimal).1837. **Iteration Signal** — "Start here, refine later" vs "Production-ready" vs "Give me options" vs "Just the code"184185### Enhancement Workflow1861871. **Diagnose**: Run through 7 dimensions — identify which are weak or missing1882. **Rewrite**: Complete rewrite, don't annotate original1893. **Changelog**: 1-2 bullet points per dimension improved190191### Specificity Table192193| Vague | Specific |194|-------|----------|195| "help with this code" | "refactor auth middleware in src/middleware/auth.ts" |196| "some options" | "exactly 3 options ranked by cost" |197| "make it better" | "improve load time from 3s to <1s on mobile Chrome" |198| "explain" | "explain in 3 bullet points to a junior dev" |199200## Error Handling201202| Error | Cause | Resolution |203|-------|-------|------------|204| Session runs over 90 min | Poor timeboxing | Assign a timer. Hard stop at 90 min regardless of progress |205| Dominant voice dominates | No facilitation structure | Switch to brainwriting or round-robin. No open floor until last 10 min |206| Ideas too similar / not novel | Groupthink | Insert reverse brainstorming or random-word technique mid-session |207| No clear decision after convergent phase | Tie votes | Use ICE scoring as tiebreaker. Default to impact if still tied |208| Prompt still produces bad output after rewrite | Diagnosed wrong dimension | Re-run 7-dimension check. Most often: missing constraint or missing example |209| "I don't have ideas" block | Blank-page problem | Use worst-idea technique or reverse brainstorming to unstick |210211## Production Checklist212213Before delivering a strategy artifact (session output, prompt, decision document):214215- [ ] Problem statement defined in "How might we..." format216- [ ] Divergent and convergent phases kept separate with a clear transition217- [ ] Convergent selection uses at least one scoring method (ICE, impact/effort, dot voting)218- [ ] Prompt covers all 7 dimensions — no dimension is "N/A" without reason219- [ ] Prompt includes at least one example (dimension 5)220- [ ] Output format specified in prompt (dimension 4)221- [ ] Iteration signal included (dimension 7)222- [ ] Decision documented with rationale and runner-up tradeoff223- [ ] Action items: owner + next step + deadline224225## Anti-Patterns226227| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correction |228|--------------|--------------|------------|229| Mixed divergent and convergent | Judgment kills idea generation before it starts | Separate phases with a break. No "yes but" during divergent |230| No warm-up | Cold start produces safe, boring ideas | Always do 5-min warm-up (e.g. "ideas for improving a paperclip") |231| Dominant voices take over | Junior or quiet team members disengage | Use brainwriting, round-robin. No open discussion until convergent |232| Too many people (8+) | Diffusion of responsibility, not enough airtime | 4-8 max per session. Split into parallel groups if larger team |233| No follow-through | Great ideas die after the session | Assign ownership, next step, and deadline before closing |234| Prompt too short (<10 words) | Model fills gaps with wrong assumptions | Expand to cover context, constraint, format, and example |235| Compound request | Model optimizes for first instruction only | Split into separate prompts or use numbered list with weighting |236| No output format | Model chooses — rarely the most useful one | Always specify format (JSON, table, bullet list, code block) |237| Using ICE without confidence check | False precision — confidence is often guessed | Calibrate confidence: "how sure are you on a 1-10?" and average across 3 people |238| Skipping opportunity cost | Overcommit to first good option | Before finalizing, ask: "What else could these resources do?" |239240## Advanced Decision Frameworks241242### RICE Scoring243Score features: `Score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort`244- Reach: how many users affected (1-1000+)245- Impact: 0.25 (minimal), 0.5 (low), 1 (medium), 2 (high), 3 (massive)246- Confidence: 20% (gut), 50% (some data), 80% (quantified), 100% (A/B tested)247- Effort: person-months248249### Kano Model250Classify features: Basic (expected, absence = dissatisfaction), Performance (more = better), Delighter (unexpected, absence = neutral). Prioritize: Basic → Performance → Delighter.251252### OKR-to-Task Decomposition253- Objective: qualitative, inspiring, time-bound (quarter)254- Key Results: 3-5 quantitative outcomes255- Tasks: decompose each KR into 2-3 actionable tasks per week256257## Sources258259- Alex Osborn "Applied Imagination"260- IDEO design thinking261- d.school Stanford facilitation guides262- Jake Knapp "Sprint"263- Annie Duke "Thinking in Bets"264- First Principles (Elon Musk / Richard Feynman approach)265- Fermi Estimation techniques266267## Checklist268269- [ ] Skill loads without errors in the AI agent270- [ ] YAML frontmatter is valid (description, compatibility, audience)271- [ ] Workflow section provides clear step-by-step instructions272- [ ] Error handling section covers common failure modes273- [ ] All referenced files (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist274- [ ] Skill triggers correctly for intended use cases275- [ ] No broken links or missing resources
eliasoulkadi