Experiment Ideas
How This Works
Most idea-brainstorm output is five generic tactics that could belong to
any company — "post more on LinkedIn," "run a referral program." This
skill grounds ideation in what's actually known: who the ICP is, what
alternatives buyers compare against, and why now matters, so every idea
is specific enough to differentiate from what a status-quo competitor is
already doing. It doesn't write anything durable — generated ideas are
disposable brainstorm output, not a company fact — and it hands off
explicitly to experiment-doc (pmm-execution), which is where a chosen
idea gets pressure-tested before it becomes a real test.
Step 0 — Load brain Sections 1 (Product), 2 (ICP), 3 (Alternatives),
5 (Market Context) if present, and guardrails from
/context/meta-patterns.md.
Step 1 — Clarify constraints: budget or resource ceiling, channels
already tried (and what happened), how many ideas wanted (default 5).
Step 2 — Generate ideas: each with Channel, Core Message, Why It
Works (tied to ICP or market energy state when brain data exists), Cost
Efficiency.
Step 3 — Self-check each idea against the ICP and named alternatives
— an idea indistinguishable from what a status-quo competitor already
does gets flagged, not silently kept.
Step 4 — Rank by effort-vs-impact, not generation order.
Step 5 — Learning Close: log the session to /context/skill-sessions.md.
Trigger
When: Brainstorming marketing or growth ideas, looking for
low-budget/high-impact tactics, exploring channels before committing
budget, or any "what should we try" moment before a specific hypothesis
exists.
Not for: Pressure-testing a single idea you've already picked
→ experiment-doc (pmm-execution), run this skill first only if you
don't yet have a specific hypothesis to test. Rewriting an already-set
positioning into segment-specific value-prop copy → value-prop-statements
(pmm-growth), run this skill first only if you need raw campaign ideas,
not copy variants of an existing statement. A full campaign brief with
calendar, audience, and metrics → gaccs-brief. Channel or motion
selection for a launch already scoped against ICP deal economics
→ gtm-motions. Writing the actual positioning statement or messaging
hierarchy → positioning-messaging.
Example prompts:
- "Give me 5 marketing ideas for this launch"
- "What are some cheap ways to get in front of our ICP?"
- "Brainstorm growth tactics for Q4"
- "We have almost no budget — what should we try?"
- "Creative campaign ideas for [product]"
Inputs
- Args: Number of ideas wanted (default 5), budget or resource
ceiling, channels already tried and what happened.
- Defaults: No brain → ask directly for product, target segment, and
constraints before generating. Brain exists → load silently, ask only
for constraints not already on file.
- Context keys:
/foundation/brain.md — read Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 if present. Never
written to — this skill produces no durable brain output.
/context/meta-patterns.md — guardrails, read at Step 0.
Pre-flight
- Load
/foundation/brain.md if it exists — Sections 1, 2, 3, 5,
silently.
- If
/context/meta-patterns.md exists and a weak-idea pattern has fired
2+ times in prior sessions logged there (e.g., ideas keep skipping the
cost-efficiency rationale, or keep repeating the same channel), surface
it once before Step 2.
- If no brain found: surface once, non-blocking — "No brain found. I can
still generate ideas from what you tell me directly, but they'll be
more generic without ICP and alternatives context. Continuing."
Steps
Step 1 — Clarify constraints.
Ask in one message: budget or resource ceiling (if any), which channels
have already been tried and what happened, how many ideas wanted
(default 5 if not specified). If brain Sections 1–3 are populated, skip
re-asking product/ICP/alternatives — state what's loaded instead.
Step 2 — Generate ideas.
For each idea, produce all four fields:
- Channel — the primary marketing channel (social, content,
partnerships, community, email, product-led, etc.)
- Core Message — the actual message, in language the ICP would
recognize, not a category-level description
- Why It Works — tied to a specific ICP trait, market energy state
(if brain Section 5 loaded), or named alternative's weakness — not a
generic engagement claim
- Cost Efficiency — a concrete reason the tactic is cheap or
resource-light for this specific team's constraints, not an assertion
("low cost because it's organic" is not concrete; "no paid spend, ~3
hours/week from one person, reuses existing customer interview
transcripts" is)
Ideas must be differentiated from each other — five variations on the
same channel fail this step and get regenerated.
Step 3 — Self-check against ICP and alternatives.
For each idea, ask: would a buyer who already uses [named alternative]
find this message meaningfully different from what that alternative
already says? An idea that fails this test is flagged
[GENERIC — doesn't differentiate from status quo] rather than silently
delivered as-is.
Step 4 — Rank by effort vs. impact.
Order the final list by realistic effort-to-impact ratio for this team's
stated constraints, not by generation order. State the ranking rationale
in one line per idea.
Step 5 — Learning Close.
Append a row to /context/skill-sessions.md:
skill: experiment-ideas
session_date: {{date}}
pattern: "{{what surprised you, a recurring weak-idea pattern, or 'none'
if nothing notable happened — never skip the row}}"
source: {{surprised/wrong/missing/n.v.t.}}
State explicitly which idea(s), if any, look strong enough to send to
experiment-doc for real pressure-testing — this skill's output is a
starting list, not a validated plan.
Outputs
- A ranked list of ideas (Channel / Core Message / Why It Works / Cost
Efficiency each), delivered in chat only — this skill writes no output
file of its own
- Session logged to
/context/skill-sessions.md
- An explicit handoff line naming which idea(s) are strong candidates for
experiment-doc
- External side effects: n.v.t.
- Next skill: check
next-skill-map.md for "After experiment-ideas"
and surface that prompt.
Verification
- Every idea has all four required fields, none left implicit
- No two ideas share a channel with substantively the same message
- Every Cost Efficiency claim names a specific reason, not an assertion
- Every idea has passed or been flagged by the alternatives self-check
- Final list is ranked by effort-vs-impact, not left in generation order
- Session logged with all four fields,
pattern: none written explicitly
if nothing notable happened — the row is never skipped
Do Not Use For
experiment-doc (pmm-execution) — when the task is pressure-testing
one specific idea with ICE scoring and statistical rigor, not
generating the raw list it draws from. Run this skill first only if no
specific hypothesis exists yet.
value-prop-statements (pmm-growth) — when the task is rewriting an
already-set positioning statement into segment- or channel-specific
copy variants, not generating new raw campaign concepts.
gaccs-brief — when the task is a full campaign brief with calendar,
audience detail, and success metrics, not a raw idea list
gtm-motions — when the task is selecting the channel/motion stack
for a launch already scoped against ICP deal economics, not
brainstorming ideas pre-scope
positioning-messaging — when the task is writing the actual
positioning statement or messaging hierarchy itself, not generating
campaign concepts
Operating Rules
- Load brain first. Don't re-ask what Sections 1–3 already answer.
- Never deliver a generic idea unflagged. If it fails the
alternatives self-check, mark it — don't quietly include it as if it
passed.
- Every idea needs all four fields. A channel with no concrete
cost-efficiency reason isn't a finished idea.
- Rank before delivering. Generation order is not a prioritization.
- Write nothing to the brain. Ideas are disposable; only a
pressure-tested experiment (via
experiment-doc) earns durability.
- Name the handoff explicitly. Don't leave "what's next" implicit —
state which idea(s) are strong enough for
experiment-doc.
Quality Gate
| Check |
Standard |
Pass = |
| All fields present |
Channel, Core Message, Why It Works, Cost Efficiency for every idea |
Yes |
| Ideas differentiated |
No two ideas share channel + substantively same message |
Yes |
| Cost efficiency concrete |
Each claim names a specific reason, not an assertion |
Yes |
| Alternatives self-check run |
Every idea checked; generic ones flagged, not hidden |
Yes |
| Ranked by effort/impact |
Final order isn't generation order |
Yes |
| Handoff stated |
Explicit line naming candidate(s) for experiment-doc |
Yes |
| Learning Close complete |
Four-field row appended, never skipped |
Yes |
Commands
/brainstorm [product or context]
Run full flow: constraints → generate → self-check → rank → handoff.
/more
Generate additional ideas beyond the initial set, using the same
constraints and brain context already established this session.
1---2name: experiment-ideas3description: Generates several concrete, cost-efficient growth ideas — each with a channel, core message, and cost-efficiency rationale — grounded in brain ICP, alternatives, and market context. Trigger with "give me marketing ideas", "brainstorm growth tactics", "what should we try", "cheap ways to promote this", or any request to generate raw campaign or channel ideas before committing to one to test.4---56# Experiment Ideas78## How This Works910Most idea-brainstorm output is five generic tactics that could belong to11any company — "post more on LinkedIn," "run a referral program." This12skill grounds ideation in what's actually known: who the ICP is, what13alternatives buyers compare against, and why now matters, so every idea14is specific enough to differentiate from what a status-quo competitor is15already doing. It doesn't write anything durable — generated ideas are16disposable brainstorm output, not a company fact — and it hands off17explicitly to `experiment-doc` (pmm-execution), which is where a chosen18idea gets pressure-tested before it becomes a real test.1920**Step 0** — Load brain Sections 1 (Product), 2 (ICP), 3 (Alternatives),215 (Market Context) if present, and guardrails from22`/context/meta-patterns.md`.2324**Step 1** — Clarify constraints: budget or resource ceiling, channels25already tried (and what happened), how many ideas wanted (default 5).2627**Step 2** — Generate ideas: each with Channel, Core Message, Why It28Works (tied to ICP or market energy state when brain data exists), Cost29Efficiency.3031**Step 3** — Self-check each idea against the ICP and named alternatives32— an idea indistinguishable from what a status-quo competitor already33does gets flagged, not silently kept.3435**Step 4** — Rank by effort-vs-impact, not generation order.3637**Step 5** — Learning Close: log the session to `/context/skill-sessions.md`.3839---4041## Trigger4243- **When:** Brainstorming marketing or growth ideas, looking for44 low-budget/high-impact tactics, exploring channels before committing45 budget, or any "what should we try" moment before a specific hypothesis46 exists.4748- **Not for:** Pressure-testing a single idea you've already picked49 → `experiment-doc` (pmm-execution), run this skill first only if you50 don't yet have a specific hypothesis to test. Rewriting an already-set51 positioning into segment-specific value-prop copy → `value-prop-statements`52 (pmm-growth), run this skill first only if you need raw campaign ideas,53 not copy variants of an existing statement. A full campaign brief with54 calendar, audience, and metrics → `gaccs-brief`. Channel or motion55 selection for a launch already scoped against ICP deal economics56 → `gtm-motions`. Writing the actual positioning statement or messaging57 hierarchy → `positioning-messaging`.5859- **Example prompts:**60 - "Give me 5 marketing ideas for this launch"61 - "What are some cheap ways to get in front of our ICP?"62 - "Brainstorm growth tactics for Q4"63 - "We have almost no budget — what should we try?"64 - "Creative campaign ideas for [product]"6566---6768## Inputs6970- **Args:** Number of ideas wanted (default 5), budget or resource71 ceiling, channels already tried and what happened.72- **Defaults:** No brain → ask directly for product, target segment, and73 constraints before generating. Brain exists → load silently, ask only74 for constraints not already on file.75- **Context keys:**76 - `/foundation/brain.md` — read Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 if present. Never77 written to — this skill produces no durable brain output.78 - `/context/meta-patterns.md` — guardrails, read at Step 0.7980---8182## Pre-flight8384- Load `/foundation/brain.md` if it exists — Sections 1, 2, 3, 5,85 silently.86- If `/context/meta-patterns.md` exists and a weak-idea pattern has fired87 2+ times in prior sessions logged there (e.g., ideas keep skipping the88 cost-efficiency rationale, or keep repeating the same channel), surface89 it once before Step 2.90- If no brain found: surface once, non-blocking — "No brain found. I can91 still generate ideas from what you tell me directly, but they'll be92 more generic without ICP and alternatives context. Continuing."9394---9596## Steps9798**Step 1 — Clarify constraints.**99Ask in one message: budget or resource ceiling (if any), which channels100have already been tried and what happened, how many ideas wanted101(default 5 if not specified). If brain Sections 1–3 are populated, skip102re-asking product/ICP/alternatives — state what's loaded instead.103104**Step 2 — Generate ideas.**105For each idea, produce all four fields:106- **Channel** — the primary marketing channel (social, content,107 partnerships, community, email, product-led, etc.)108- **Core Message** — the actual message, in language the ICP would109 recognize, not a category-level description110- **Why It Works** — tied to a specific ICP trait, market energy state111 (if brain Section 5 loaded), or named alternative's weakness — not a112 generic engagement claim113- **Cost Efficiency** — a concrete reason the tactic is cheap or114 resource-light for this specific team's constraints, not an assertion115 ("low cost because it's organic" is not concrete; "no paid spend, ~3116 hours/week from one person, reuses existing customer interview117 transcripts" is)118119Ideas must be differentiated from each other — five variations on the120same channel fail this step and get regenerated.121122**Step 3 — Self-check against ICP and alternatives.**123For each idea, ask: would a buyer who already uses [named alternative]124find this message meaningfully different from what that alternative125already says? An idea that fails this test is flagged126`[GENERIC — doesn't differentiate from status quo]` rather than silently127delivered as-is.128129**Step 4 — Rank by effort vs. impact.**130Order the final list by realistic effort-to-impact ratio for this team's131stated constraints, not by generation order. State the ranking rationale132in one line per idea.133134**Step 5 — Learning Close.**135Append a row to `/context/skill-sessions.md`:136137```yaml138skill: experiment-ideas139session_date: {{date}}140pattern: "{{what surprised you, a recurring weak-idea pattern, or 'none'141 if nothing notable happened — never skip the row}}"142source: {{surprised/wrong/missing/n.v.t.}}143```144145State explicitly which idea(s), if any, look strong enough to send to146`experiment-doc` for real pressure-testing — this skill's output is a147starting list, not a validated plan.148149---150151## Outputs152153- A ranked list of ideas (Channel / Core Message / Why It Works / Cost154 Efficiency each), delivered in chat only — this skill writes no output155 file of its own156- Session logged to `/context/skill-sessions.md`157- An explicit handoff line naming which idea(s) are strong candidates for158 `experiment-doc`159- **External side effects:** n.v.t.160- **Next skill:** check `next-skill-map.md` for "After experiment-ideas"161 and surface that prompt.162163---164165## Verification166167- Every idea has all four required fields, none left implicit168- No two ideas share a channel with substantively the same message169- Every Cost Efficiency claim names a specific reason, not an assertion170- Every idea has passed or been flagged by the alternatives self-check171- Final list is ranked by effort-vs-impact, not left in generation order172- Session logged with all four fields, `pattern: none` written explicitly173 if nothing notable happened — the row is never skipped174175---176177## Do Not Use For178179- **experiment-doc** (pmm-execution) — when the task is pressure-testing180 one specific idea with ICE scoring and statistical rigor, not181 generating the raw list it draws from. Run this skill first only if no182 specific hypothesis exists yet.183184- **value-prop-statements** (pmm-growth) — when the task is rewriting an185 already-set positioning statement into segment- or channel-specific186 copy variants, not generating new raw campaign concepts.187188- **gaccs-brief** — when the task is a full campaign brief with calendar,189 audience detail, and success metrics, not a raw idea list190191- **gtm-motions** — when the task is selecting the channel/motion stack192 for a launch already scoped against ICP deal economics, not193 brainstorming ideas pre-scope194195- **positioning-messaging** — when the task is writing the actual196 positioning statement or messaging hierarchy itself, not generating197 campaign concepts198199---200201## Operating Rules2022031. **Load brain first.** Don't re-ask what Sections 1–3 already answer.2042. **Never deliver a generic idea unflagged.** If it fails the205 alternatives self-check, mark it — don't quietly include it as if it206 passed.2073. **Every idea needs all four fields.** A channel with no concrete208 cost-efficiency reason isn't a finished idea.2094. **Rank before delivering.** Generation order is not a prioritization.2105. **Write nothing to the brain.** Ideas are disposable; only a211 pressure-tested experiment (via `experiment-doc`) earns durability.2126. **Name the handoff explicitly.** Don't leave "what's next" implicit —213 state which idea(s) are strong enough for `experiment-doc`.214215---216217## Quality Gate218219| Check | Standard | Pass = |220|---|---|---|221| All fields present | Channel, Core Message, Why It Works, Cost Efficiency for every idea | Yes |222| Ideas differentiated | No two ideas share channel + substantively same message | Yes |223| Cost efficiency concrete | Each claim names a specific reason, not an assertion | Yes |224| Alternatives self-check run | Every idea checked; generic ones flagged, not hidden | Yes |225| Ranked by effort/impact | Final order isn't generation order | Yes |226| Handoff stated | Explicit line naming candidate(s) for experiment-doc | Yes |227| Learning Close complete | Four-field row appended, never skipped | Yes |228229---230231## Commands232233### /brainstorm [product or context]234Run full flow: constraints → generate → self-check → rank → handoff.235236### /more237Generate additional ideas beyond the initial set, using the same238constraints and brain context already established this session.