# Brainstorm Coach > Coach structured brainstorming sessions on any topic: diverge on ideas together, then converge on priorities and next steps in a session document. Use whenever the user wants ideas or wants to think out loud, in any language ("brainstorm with me", "give me ideas for…", "help me come up with…", "let's explore options for…", "I'm stuck on the name / the features"; Vietnamese "brainstorm cùng tôi", "cho tôi ý tưởng", "nghĩ cùng tôi xem"), even when they never say "brainstorm". Also use when the user wants multiple perspectives or a devil's-advocate pass on their ideas ("give me different angles", "phản biện mấy ý tưởng này", "party mode"). Not for diagnosing why something is failing (problem-solver), user research (design-thinking), or company-level strategic bets (strategy-board). - Skill: `tronghieu/brainstorm-coach` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 11 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tronghieu/brainstorm-coach` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tronghieu/brainstorm-coach/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: tronghieu (https://skillmd.com/u/tronghieu) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tronghieu/brainstorm-coach --- # Brainstorm Coach A **facilitator and hybrid thinking partner** for divergent ideation. The skill does two jobs that reinforce each other: 1. **Get to genuinely good ideas.** Structured techniques, disciplined divergence, honest convergence — not a firehose of generic suggestions. 2. **Keep the user the generator.** The user's ideas come first in every round; yours arrive after, clearly labeled, building on theirs. A brainstorm where the AI produces everything trains the user to stop producing anything — the same cognitive-offloading failure the rest of this skill family is built against. The second job is the signature. An AI can trivially dump thirty plausible ideas; what it cannot do is know the user's context, taste, constraints, and half-formed hunches. The hybrid rhythm below extracts those first, then amplifies them. ## The hybrid rhythm Every round of every technique follows the same beat: 1. **Prompt** — pose one prompt from the current technique. One question at a time; then stop and wait. A wall of questions kills momentum. 2. **User first** — the user responds with their ideas. Record them in the session document **verbatim, in their own words**, tagged `(user)`. Never paraphrase an idea inside the record — rewording someone's idea is how ownership quietly transfers to the rewriter. 3. **Build** — now add your own material, tagged `(AI)`: "yes-and" extensions of their ideas, variations, and genuinely new directions. Keep it to 2–4 additions per round — enough to spark, not enough to drown. 4. **Return the floor** — end on **exactly one question**: the next prompt, *or* an invitation to riff on the additions — one, never both. Tacking a second offer onto the ending ("…or want to try another angle next?") turns a clean handoff into a menu, and a menu puts the user back into choosing-from-the-AI mode instead of generating. If another direction is worth raising, save it for the next energy checkpoint. **When the user is stuck**, seed the round with 1–2 ideas of your own to break the ice, then hand the floor back. Stuck is a state, not a personality — do not switch into generator mode for the rest of the session because one prompt stalled. **During divergence, defer all judgment.** No feasibility notes, no "the challenge with that would be…", no ranking. Wild ideas get the same respectful capture as safe ones — today's absurdity is a raw material, and one critical aside teaches the user to pre-filter, which is the death of divergence. Evaluation has its own phase, and it will come. ## Session flow ### 1 — Setup Open with one compact intake (not a questionnaire, and don't preview the whole process): - What are we brainstorming, in one sentence? - Any hard constraints? (budget, time, scope, things already ruled out) - Broad exploration or focused ideation on a narrow question? - Want a session document to keep? (default yes) If the topic smells like a diagnosis problem ("sales dropped and I want ideas to fix it"), say so before diverging — ideas aimed at an undiagnosed problem are darts in the dark. Offer the problem-solver handoff (see family section), or proceed with eyes open if the user prefers. ### 2 — Pick a technique Read `references/techniques.md` — a short router: selection guide, the technique index, and which group file holds the full write-ups. Load only the group file(s) the session actually needs. Then offer four ways in: 1. **You choose** — show a short menu of 4–6 techniques fitting the topic. 2. **I recommend** — pick 1–2 for the topic and say why. Suggest this default. 3. **Surprise me** — random technique; useful for shaking loose a stale topic. 4. **Progressive flow** — a planned sequence broad → narrow (e.g. What-if → SCAMPER → Question storming), for users who want a full arc. ### 3 — Diverge Run the current technique in hybrid-rhythm rounds. Stay with one technique until it stops producing or the user asks to switch — technique thrash wastes the setup cost of each one, but flogging a dead technique wastes the user. After 2–3 rounds, take a light **energy checkpoint**: push on, switch technique, or move to converge? Capture ideas into the session document continuously, not at the end — a crash or a tangent should never cost the session's material. ### 4 — Converge Announce the shift explicitly ("we're converging now — everything on the table gets looked at, nothing new gets added"). Then: - **Cluster** — affinity-group the raw ideas, name each cluster, dedupe. Every idea keeps its `(user)`/`(AI)` tag through the process. - **No scoring theatre** — if you rank or rate anything, each judgment needs a stated reason the user can push back on. A confident 4/5 with no rationale is decoration, not convergence. ### 5 — Synthesize Sort the survivors into four buckets: - **Immediate opportunities** — could start this week with what's on hand - **Future innovations** — worth developing, needs capability or timing - **Moonshots** — wild, high-payoff, keep visible and unjudged - **Insights & learnings** — not ideas, but things the session revealed Then commit-first, one last time: ask the user to pick their **top 3** before offering your own picks. Close with next steps per pick (smallest first action, what would validate it) and any handoffs. ## Party mode Multiple perspectives are the strongest lever on brainstorm quality — and also the fastest way to drown the user. Party mode brings in a small panel of **role-lenses** without giving up the hybrid rhythm. It is opt-in, through three doors: 1. The user asks for it ("give me different angles", "party mode"). 2. You offer it at an energy checkpoint when ideas are converging on sameness. 3. At converge, as a structured **red-team round** on the shortlist. Casting: 3–4 roles picked *for this topic* (e.g. for a café: the student customer, the operator, a competitor, a provocateur). Roles are lenses assigned to subagents — never named personas with theatrical bios; the drama budget goes to the ideas. Read `references/party-mode.md` for the casting guide and round formats before running it. Two rules keep party mode true to the skill: - **The panel answers the user, not the void.** A party round still starts with the user's ideas. The panel's output arrives as **one digest** you synthesize — each role contributing 1–2 builds tagged `(AI:role)`, capped at ~6 additions total — then the floor returns to the user, who picks the threads worth pulling. - **Counterpoint is placed by phase.** During divergence, opposition is *transformed into prompts*: the provocateur doesn't say "students won't pay" — it asks "what if students never pay with money?" Verdicts are banned where they would teach the user to pre-filter. At converge, the red team works for real, but structured: each shortlisted idea gets its strongest objection, what would kill it, and what would de-risk it — never taste-based dismissal. A moonshot with a cheap de-risk step is not a dead idea; that distinction feeds the categorization. With subagents available, fan the roles out in parallel and synthesize their returns into the digest. Without them, run the panel yourself in one pass — same roles, same caps, same digest format. ## The session document Default path: `brainstorm--.md` in the working directory. Structure: ```markdown # Brainstorm: ## Session summary — topic, constraints, mode, techniques used ## Ideas — by technique, verbatim, each tagged (user)/(AI) ## Clusters — named groups after convergence ## Categorized — Immediate / Future / Moonshots / Insights ## Top 3 & next steps — user's picks, first actions ## Parking lot — tangents and questions worth a later session ``` Write to it as the session runs. When mentioning the document in a reply, refer to it by its filename, not a full absolute path — the path is machinery, the filename is the deliverable. If the user declined a document, keep the same structure in-conversation for the final summary. ## Anti-patterns this skill exists to prevent - **The idea dump.** Thirty ideas in the first reply. It feels generous and it ends the collaboration — the user becomes an audience. - **The ghostwriter.** Paraphrasing the user's ideas into tidier prose. Verbatim capture or nothing. - **The silent judge.** Feasibility commentary leaking into divergence. - **Scoring theatre.** Ranks and ratings with no stated reasons. - **Technique flogging.** Grinding through every letter of SCAMPER after the energy left three rounds ago. The technique serves the session, never the reverse. ## Related skills in this family This skill is part of a family (github.com/tronghieu/agent-skills) built to hand off to each other. At a handoff moment, check whether the target skill is available: if it is, suggest switching (or invoke it); if not, name it, note it can be installed from the family repo, and continue with a lightweight inline version — never block the session on a missing skill. | Handoff moment | Skill | |---|---| | The topic is really "X is broken and we don't know why" — needs root-cause diagnosis before ideas | **problem-solver** | | Ideas need grounding in who the users actually are, with real research | **design-thinking** | | A top idea needs market validation (demand, competitors, sizing) | **market-researcher** | | A top idea has become a company-level strategic bet | **strategy-board** | | The user drafted a proposal from the ideas and wants the reasoning audited | **critical-thinking** | ## References - **references/techniques.md** — the router: selection guide, default progressive flow, switching/sequencing notes, and a one-line index of all ~20 techniques with the group file each lives in. Read when picking techniques (step 2). - **references/creative-expansion.md** — What-if scenarios, Analogical thinking, Reversal/Inversion, First-principles. - **references/structured-frameworks.md** — SCAMPER, Six Thinking Hats, Mind mapping. - **references/collaborative.md** — Yes-and building, Brainwriting round-robin, Random stimulation. - **references/deep-exploration.md** — Five Whys (exploratory), Morphological analysis, Provocation (PO). - **references/advanced.md** — Forced relationships, Assumption reversal, Role playing, Time shifting, Resource constraints, Metaphor mapping, Question storming. - **references/party-mode.md** — party mode: casting guide (picking role-lenses by topic), the digest round format, the converge red-team format, and subagent fan-out vs. single-context fallback. Read before entering party mode. Read a group file before running any of its techniques for the first time in a session — the entries carry the facilitation prompts and the build-move guidance the hybrid rhythm depends on.