| name | pm-brainstorm |
| description | Проводит структурированный сеанс дивергенции вокруг конкретной продуктовой проблемы или возможности. Встроены SCAMPER (7 ракурсов), 5 Whys для поиска корневой причины, кросс-доменное вдохновение, ограничивающие инновации, обратный брейншторм и матрица Impact/Effort для отбора. На выходе — ≥10 идей с детально проработанным Top-3. User-invoked only — do NOT auto-trigger. Triggers on /pm-brainstorm, "идеи для продукта", "продуктовый брейншторм", "дивергенция идей", "How Might We", "SCAMPER", "product brainstorm", "feature ideas". |
pm-brainstorm — Structured product brainstorm
Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents.
Run a structured creative-divergence session on a specific product problem or opportunity. Not just listing ideas — challenges assumptions, borrows across domains, helps reach options you wouldn't have otherwise. Output is a screened idea list ready for next-step action.
Inputs
| Field | Required | Notes |
|---|
| Topic | yes | Problem to solve or opportunity to explore — more specific = better |
| Background | no | Persona, current data, known constraints |
| Mode | no | Full divergence / single framework only; default full |
| Constraints | no | Tech, time, resource limits |
Good topic: "How might we make new users feel value within the first 5 minutes of first use?"
Bad topic: "How do we improve the product?" (too vague)
Step 1 — Problem focus
Before diverging, sharpen the problem.
Probing checklist:
- Who has this problem? Specific user types and scenarios
- How is it solved today? Current alternative or workaround
- Why does it matter? Consequence of inaction
- What does success look like? What does a good solution look like
- What constraints? Tech / time / resource bounds
Restate as a How Might We:
- "How might we let {target user} more easily {achieve goal} in {scenario}?"
Step 2 — SCAMPER (7 lenses)
Run each lens once; aim for 1-2 ideas per lens.
| Lens | Core question | Direction |
|---|
| S — Substitute | What component can be substituted? | Different tech / interaction / entry point? |
| C — Combine | Can we merge two features? | Merge steps / contexts / bundle features |
| A — Adapt | What from elsewhere can we borrow? | Method from social apps? From productivity tools? |
| M — Modify | What if we 10×'d or 0.1×'d this? | Minimal version? Maximal version? |
| P — Put to other use | What other context could this serve? | Other personas? Other scenarios? |
| E — Eliminate | What if we remove something? | Cut steps / fields / signup / friction? |
| R — Rearrange | What if we reorder? | Try first / signup later? Reverse order? |
Total: 7-14 initial ideas.
Step 3 — 5-Whys root-cause divergence
From a user pain, descend to the root, then ideate from each layer.
Example:
Pain: new users churn on day 2
- Why 1: They didn't find what they wanted on day 1
- Why 2: Feature entries are too deep
- Why 3: Navigation is structured by product architecture, not user task
- Why 4: No user-task analysis was done
- Why 5 (root): Product design is detached from actual user scenarios
- Idea: Run user-task analysis, restructure navigation by task
- Idea: Add search / smart-recommendations entry point
- Idea: Onboarding leads users directly to core feature
- Idea: Ask intent at signup, personalize home
Rules:
- Probe to at least Why 3
- Each Why can fork (one symptom may have multiple causes)
- Generate 1-2 solutions per Why layer
Step 4 — Cross-domain inspiration
Don't copy competitors — look at what they do, then think "what could we do that's different".
Cross-domain prompts:
- List 3-5 products that are not direct competitors but solve a similar user need
- Note what's notable about each
- Ask: if we transplanted this approach to our context, what would adapt? What would change?
Differentiation prompts:
- Everyone does X → what if we do Y instead?
- Competitor's X is criticized for Z → could we cut into the pain at Z?
- Need users discuss heavily on social media but no competitor has shipped → opportunity?
Step 5 — Constraint-innovation
Deliberately set constraints to spark creativity.
| Constraint | Setup | Stimulus |
|---|
| Time | "Only 1 week of dev time" | Forces minimum viable approach |
| Tech | "Use only existing stack" | Reveals new uses of existing capabilities |
| Cost | "Zero dev investment" | Ops moves, config changes, copy tweaks |
| Extreme | "Change one line of code" | Find the highest-leverage single point |
| Inversion | "Let users design it" | Switch perspective |
1-2 ideas per constraint. Tighter constraints often produce more elegant ideas.
Step 6 — Reverse brainstorm
First think "how could we make this worse", then invert each idea.
Steps:
- Restate as the inverse: "How might we make new users uninstall on day 1?"
- List everything that would worsen the problem (often easier than positive ideation)
- Invert each "make-worse" idea into an improvement
Example:
| Make-worse | Inverted |
|---|
| Require 20 fields at signup | Phone-only signup, progressive profile fill |
| Home is full of ads | Home shows only goal-relevant content |
| Hide all help entries | Surface guidance proactively at confusion points |
Reverse-brainstorm bypasses the "find the right answer" pressure — the divergence stage gets freer.
Step 7 — Impact / Effort screening
Drop all ideas into a 2×2:
| Quadrant | Impact | Effort | Strategy | Ideas |
|---|
| Quick Wins | High | Low | Validate first | {list} |
| Big Bets | High | High | Worth investing, plan carefully | {list} |
| Fill-ins | Low | Low | When idle | {list} |
| Money Pits | Low | High | Drop | {list} |
Scoring:
- Impact: size of pain solved × users affected
- Effort: dev + design + integration test
Step 8 — Output
# Product Brainstorm
**Topic:** {problem}
**HMW:** How might we {restated as HMW}
**Date:** {today}
**Ideas generated:** {N} (kept after screening: {M})
## Idea List
| # | Idea | Pain solved | Source framework | Expected value | Effort | Quadrant | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | {desc} | {pain} | SCAMPER-Eliminate | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | Quick Win | {validation} |
## Top 3 Recommendations
### Idea 1: {name}
- **Description:** {detail}
- **Pain solved:** {specific pain}
- **Expected impact:** {quantified, e.g. "+5-10% D1 retention"}
- **Implementation path:** {brief tech / design approach}
- **Validation:** {how to validate fast — A/B test, gradual rollout, etc.}
- **Risk:** {risks and mitigation}
### Idea 2: {name}
…
### Idea 3: {name}
…
## Dropped Ideas (archived)
- {idea X}: dropped because — {reason}
- {idea Y}: dropped because — {reason}
## Next Actions
- [ ] {action 1}
- [ ] {action 2}
Brainstorm principles
- Diverge before converge — no judgment during divergence; screen during convergence
- Quantity drives quality — first hit 15+ ideas, then screen
- Concrete beats abstract — "add a progress bar at signup step 3" beats "improve signup UX"
- Allow extremes — extreme ideas, refined, often become great
- Challenge assumptions — push back on "impossible" / "we've always done it this way"
Quality bar
- ≥ 10 ideas generated (sufficient divergence)
- Each idea has a concrete description (not vague "optimize X")
- Ideas come from ≥ 3 different frameworks
- Top 3 have explicit validation methods
- Output is decision-ready as input to the next step
Red lines
- No rejection during divergence — never say "can't" / "impossible" while ideating
- No empty advice — "improve UX" is fluff, not an idea
- Doesn't replace decision — outputs options, not the choice
When input is incomplete
- Topic too broad → narrow it (probe scenario and user)
- Missing background → ideate on generic product logic, tag "recommend specific data for sharper output"
- Single framework specified → use only that one, but suggest "more frameworks = more dimensions"
Related skills
/pm-prd — Top idea → PRD/pm-prioritize — Idea list → formal ranking/pm-user-stories — Ideas → developable Stories/pm-feedback — Pain points from feedback → brainstorm fuel/pm-competitive — Validate differentiation level
