| 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 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"} |
Strategy
Structured thinking for brainstorming, prompt engineering, and decision making.
Brainstorming
1. Process
- Divergent (generate, no judgment) โ 15-30 min
- Clustering (organize, group, eliminate) โ 10-15 min
- Convergent (select, vote, prioritize) โ 15-20 min
Never mix divergent and convergent โ 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 โ 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) ร Confidence (1-10) ร Ease (1-10)
Higher = prioritize first
Impact/Effort Matrix
High Impact Low Impact
Low Effort โ Do First โ Quick Wins
High Effort โ Strategic โ 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 โ Remove ambiguity. Every noun and verb should have one interpretation.
- Specificity โ Replace vague language with concrete details. Use names, paths, numbers.
- Constraints โ Technology, resource, time, compliance hard boundaries.
- Format โ Bullet list, table, code block, JSON, Mermaid. Tell the model how to answer.
- Examples โ One example is worth 100 words of description.
- Tone โ Internal message (direct), client email (professional-cordial), docs (neutral-precise), bug report (factual-minimal).
- Iteration Signal โ "Start here, refine later" vs "Production-ready" vs "Give me options" vs "Just the code"
Enhancement Workflow
- Diagnose: Run through 7 dimensions โ 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 โ rarely the most useful one | Always specify format (JSON, table, bullet list, code block) |
| Using ICE without confidence check | False precision โ 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?" |
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