القائمة
Use before offering creative options, story directions, or brainstorming ideas so proposals are original, character-driven, and beyond the familiar.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use this skill for requests related to web research; it provides a structured approach to conducting comprehensive web research
Load when the MainAgent is assembling a comparison report across multiple narrative-direction explorations (results from parallel/sequential task(explorer) calls). Use to compare directions along narrative, character, cost, and reader-promise dimensions. "Branches" here means narrative branches — this is NOT a git branch tool.
Plan and track a character's long-term transformation arc, ensuring each action reflects their current stage of change.
Check physical, social, and psychological plausibility in fiction scenes.
Load when WriterAgent finishes a chapter draft or is planning a chapter that should set up later payoffs. Use to embed plant-able details (objects, gestures, line drops) for ch+2 or later, and to verify earlier plants get acknowledged. Skip for the very first chapter (no prior plants exist) and for pure dialogue scenes with no narrative scaffolding.
Plan or draft scenes where rhythm, tension, and momentum matter by balancing escalation and release.
| name | brainstorm-quality |
| description | Use before offering creative options, story directions, or brainstorming ideas so proposals are original, character-driven, and beyond the familiar. |
Read this skill before offering any creative direction, scene idea, or story option.
Before presenting any creative proposal to the author, complete both phases internally.
Phase 1 — Generate and reject the familiar version
Name the obvious version of what you're about to propose. The obvious version is what arrives first: the fight, the confrontation, the chase, the tearful confession. It is the scene readers have seen in other stories with this premise.
Ask: if I showed this to the author right now, would they say "of course"? If yes, discard it. The author does not need help reaching the obvious version—they can do that without an agent.
Phase 2 — Verify the actual proposal before outputting
Apply the three-layer test to your real proposal:
If you cannot answer layer 2 and layer 3 with specifics from the StoryBible, the proposal is not ready. Go back to phase 1.
Every direction you propose must depend on who these specific characters are. Ask: would this scene work in a different story with the same premise but different characters?
If yes, it is generic. The premise is not the story—the characters are. A cloning story with a controlling person will generate entirely different scenes than one with a person whose false belief is that they have always been ordinary. Both have two identical bodies. The scenes have nothing in common.
Before proposing: identify which part of the character's psychology triangle (core desire / core fear / false belief) this direction activates. State it explicitly when presenting the proposal.
Directions differ in kind when they produce different emotional shapes, not different events. "They fight" and "they fight but one is secretly hoping to lose" are not two directions—they are one direction at two levels of development.
Generate directions that end in different states:
The useful test: could both directions plausibly fit the same story? If yes, they are not different enough.
When the author provides a numbered list, detailed framework, or sequence of ideas: treat each item as raw material to be dramatized, not a literal instruction to execute.
The author's framework is their analytical understanding of what the story needs. Your job is to find the moment—the specific scene, exchange, or image—that makes that understanding visceral. Item 3 on their list is not a scene. It is a story need. Design the scene that makes the reader feel that need as an experience.
Scene quality: removing this scene would change who the character is, not just what happens. If removing it only removes an event, the scene is underperforming.
Conflict quality: if these characters had different personalities, would this conflict still exist? If yes, it is driven by plot, not character.
Character quality: is the character doing something that only they—with their specific desire, fear, and false belief—would do in this exact situation? If a different character would make the same choice, the scene has not used this character.
