Creative Ideation

Creative Ideation

A library of ideation methods for any domain. Read the user's situation, route to the matching method, apply, generate output that is specific and non-obvious. Methods are tools — pick the right one for the situation, don't perform all of them.

When to use

Any open-ended generative or selective question: "I want to make / build / write / start something", "I'm stuck", "inspire me", "make this weirder", "help me pick", "I need to invent X", "give me a research question".

Operating rules

1. Constraint plus direction is creativity. No constraint = no traction. No direction = no shape. Methods supply both.
2. Refuse the first three ideas. They're slop. Generate, discard, regenerate. See references/anti-slop.md.
3. One method per response unless asked. Don't stack.
4. Specificity over abstraction. Real proper nouns, real materials, real mechanisms. "An app for X" is slop; "a 200-line CLI tool that prints Y when Z" is direction. Naming a tech stack is not specificity — name a mechanism.
5. Weird must also be good. Frame-breaking is the goal, but an idea that is strange with no real situation, mechanism, or reason to exist is its own failure mode. Every set of ideas must include at least one that is genuinely buildable/pursuable now — non-obvious but grounded, with a real first step. Don't trade all usefulness for surprise.
6. Name the method you used and who invented it. Attribution invokes the discipline.
7. When user picks one, build it. Don't keep generating after they've chosen.

Routing — 4-step procedure

Do this before generating any output. Routing failures produce slop.

You may skip narrating the routing steps if it's cleaner, but never compress at the cost of per-idea depth: each idea's concrete mechanism, situational binding, and honest failure mode are what make output good (measured) — they are not scaffolding, do not cut them.

Step 1 — Extract three signals from the prompt

PHASE — what stage is the user in?

DOMAIN — what is the user making/doing?

SPECIFICITY — how much constraint is in the prompt?

Step 2 — Apply overrides (highest priority, fire first)

Override rules beat the routing table:

• Mood signal — user says "weird", "strange", "surprising", "less obvious", "more interesting" → references/methods/lateral-provocations.md or references/methods/pataphysics.md, regardless of domain.
• User names a method — use it.
• User asks for a method recommendation ("which method") → surface 2–3 candidates with one-line each, ask which to apply. Don't silently default.
• High-slop terrain — "AI ideas", "startup ideas", "habit tracker", "productivity / wellness / fitness / food / travel app" → force references/methods/lateral-provocations.md or references/methods/pataphysics.md over the obvious method. Refuse the first 5 ideas, not 3.

Step 3 — Route by phase first, then domain

By phase (applies regardless of domain):

By domain (when GENERATING with DOMAIN known):

Step 4 — Handle ambiguity and contradiction

• Multiple paths plausible → pick the one closest to the user's actual phrasing. Don't pick the most interesting method to seem sophisticated.
• Genuinely ambiguous → ask ONE clarifying question, don't silently guess. Examples: "Are you generating ideas or picking between ones you have?" / "Is this for fiction, essay, or something else?"
• Signals contradict (e.g., "weird startup ideas" → product domain + weird mood) → stack two methods explicitly. State what you're doing: "Using jobs-to-be-done for the product framing + lateral-provocations to break the obvious shape."
• No match → constraint dispatch (references/full-prompt-library.md) is the safe fallback.
• Same question asked again → switch methods. Variation in method = variation in idea distribution.

Anti-default check (run before generating)

• About to write "Here are 5 ideas:" or a bare numbered list? → STOP. Pick a method first.
• About to default to generic LLM-mode brainstorming? → STOP. Pick a path above.
• Output looks like what an unrouted LLM would produce? → routing failed, redo.

The default LLM mode is exactly what this skill exists to displace. If you generate without routing, you've defeated the skill.

Routing trace (emit before output)

Once routing is settled, the first line of your response is a single machine-parseable trace recording the decision:

ROUTE: PHASE=<phase> DOMAIN=<domain> SPECIFICITY=<level> → <method>[ | override:<rule>]

Example: ROUTE: PHASE=GENERATING DOMAIN=ARTIFACT SPECIFICITY=PROJECT → first-principles | override:high-slop

This makes every routing decision auditable (and gradeable — see references/eval/). Stack two methods with + (→ jobs-to-be-done + lateral-provocations). Omit the trace only when it would be genuinely redundant and the response reads cleaner without it — but keep it whenever the routing is non-obvious or contested.

For deeper edge cases (mood signals, stacking, anti-patterns) see references/heuristics.md.

Output format

For the constraint-dispatch default path:

## Constraint: [Name] — from [Source]
> [The constraint, one sentence]

### Ideas

1. **[One-line pitch]**
   [2-3 sentences — what specifically is made, why it's interesting]
   ⏱ [weekend/week/month]  •  🔧 [stack/medium/materials]

2. ...
3. ...

For other methods, use the format the method specifies (TRIZ produces a contradiction analysis; OuLiPo produces constrained text; Oblique Strategies produces a single applied card → next move). Don't force every method into the constraint template.

Before output (MANDATORY): run the scoring pass in references/anti-slop.md — score every idea against the 5-test diagnostic, discard any failing ≥2, regenerate, then run the sharp-friend adversarial pass. Nothing ships that hasn't been through this gate.

Every idea set, regardless of method:

• Name the method used. On slop terrain, name the obvious ideas you refused.
• Give each idea its concrete mechanism and its honest failure mode / tradeoff / who-it's-for. This depth is what makes ideas land — measured, not decorative.
• Mark at least one idea as the grounded one — buildable/pursuable now, non-obvious but with a real first step. The others can run further toward the strange; this one has to be genuinely doable. Don't let the whole set be weird-but-impractical.

File map

• references/full-prompt-library.md — constraint library, sectioned by domain (General, Software, Physical, Social, Lists). Default path for SPECIFICITY=NONE.
• references/method-catalog.md — one-line summary + when-to-use per method
• references/heuristics.md — extended decision tree for edge cases
• references/anti-slop.md — anti-slop rules; apply to every output
• references/exercises.md — time-boxed exercises (5min / 30min / 1hr / day / week)
• references/methods/ — 22 named methods, one file each, load only the one you're using
• references/eval/ — eval harness: cases.jsonl (labeled routing cases) + check.py (grades captured outputs against the loss function; uv run check.py --selftest)

Attribution

Constraint-dispatch core adapted from wttdotm.com/prompts.html. Methods drawn from primary sources cited in each method file.