brainstorm

name	brainstorm
description	[Content] Use when you need to brainstorm as a PO/BA — structured ideation for problem-solving, new product creation, or feature enhancement.
disable-model-invocation	false

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
• User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
• Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
• Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
• Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required spawn_agent subagent(s) for that task.
• Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
• For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
• If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.

Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

Always read:

• docs/project-config.json (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
• docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md (routes to the full docs/project-reference/* catalog)
• docs/project-reference/lessons.md (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

Missing/stale context route: If docs/project-config.json, the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow setup route ($project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, $scan --target=<key>, $claude-md-init) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are missing/stale, ask the user to run $sync-codex; do not auto-run it.

Situation-based docs:

• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec authoring, docs/specs/ pathing, or TC format: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md
• Behavior/public-contract changes or spec-test-code sync: workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md plus the spec docs above
• Derived spec indexes/ERDs/reimplementation guides: spec-system-reference.md and source Feature Specs under docs/specs/
• Integration test implementation/review: integration-test-reference.md
• E2E test implementation/review: e2e-test-reference.md
• Code review/audit work: code-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set in_progress when step starts, set completed when step ends. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

Quick Summary

Goal: Facilitate a structured PO/BA brainstorming session via the Double Diamond process (diverge to discover problems and opportunities, then converge to validate and prioritize) to deliver a scored, ranked shortlist of 3-5 candidate ideas — each carrying a problem + value hypothesis, an identified riskiest assumption, and the cheapest validation test designed — so the team commits to the right problem AND the right solution before building, never to a flat unvalidated idea list.

Summary:

• Run a direct user question Phase 0 FIRST to detect scenario (Problem-Solving / New Product / Enhancement), role (PO / BA / Mixed), and how-much-is-known — each scenario routes a different technique sequence (see Scenario Cheat Sheets), so misclassifying here derails everything downstream.
• Strictly separate diverge (Phases 1 & 3 — generate, "Yes, and…", zero judgment) from converge (Phases 2 & 4 — narrow, RICE/Kano/MoSCoW scoring); mixing the two modes is the Golden Rule violation that kills idea output.
• Never stop at a raw or flat idea list: every top-3 candidate MUST carry a problem + value hypothesis card, an identified riskiest assumption (RAT), and the single cheapest validation test designed before any build commitment.
• Close with an opinionated decision (Phase 6 — recommend ONE option with trade-offs, not a menu), every claim evidence-backed at >80% confidence, then offer handoff via a direct user question to $idea, $refine, $plan, etc.

Three Scenarios:

Scenario	Entry Trigger	Primary Methods
Problem-Solving	"Something is broken / users complain / metric is bad"	5 Whys → Fishbone → HMW → SCAMPER → Hypothesis RAT
New Product	"Greenfield idea / new market / no codebase yet"	JTBD → Lean Canvas → Crazy 8s → Opportunity Scoring → Lean Hypothesis
Feature Enhancement	"Existing product / add capability / improve flow"	Opportunity Solution Tree → SCAMPER → Impact Mapping → RICE → Value Hypothesis

Double Diamond (master meta-framework):

DIAMOND 1: Right Problem          DIAMOND 2: Right Solution
────────────────────────────      ──────────────────────────
Discover ──► Define               Develop ──► Deliver
(diverge)    (converge)           (diverge)   (converge)

Golden Rule: NEVER evaluate ideas while generating them. Diverge and converge are separate modes. Mixing them kills creative output.

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking. Every idea needs a testable hypothesis. Confidence >80% required before recommending.

---

Answer this question:

$ARGUMENTS

---

Phase 0: Session Setup (MANDATORY)

Use a direct user question to detect scenario, role, and constraints before any technique.

0.1 — Scenario Detection

Ask:

1. "What scenario are we in?"

   • Problem-solving — something is broken, users struggle, a metric is bad
   • New product — greenfield, no existing product in this space
   • Feature enhancement — existing product, add/improve/remove capability
   • Mixed — multiple of the above

2. "What is the primary role in this session?"

   • Product Owner — outcome-focused, business value, user outcomes
   • Business Analyst — requirements-focused, process analysis, stakeholder mapping
   • Both PO + BA — full discovery and requirements
   • Developer / Architect — technical feasibility brainstorm

3. "How much is already known?"

   • Raw seed — just an intuition or observation
   • Problem confirmed — we know the problem, need solutions
   • Solution direction known — need to evaluate and score options
   • Idea exists — need hypothesis validation only

0.2 — Context Loading

• If project codebase exists: read docs/specs/ to understand domain
• If greenfield: skip codebase reading; rely on user input and web research
• Load docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md if entity context needed
• Use WebSearch for market/competitor context when scenario = New Product or Enhancement

---

Phase 1: Problem Framing — Diamond 1 Diverge

Goal: Fully understand problem space before jumping to solutions. #1 brainstorming failure: solving the wrong problem.

Time-box: 20–45 minutes of session time.

1.1 — Problem Statement (POV Format)

Formulate a crisp problem statement BEFORE any ideation:

[User/Persona] needs [need/job-to-be-done]
because [insight/root cause/context],
but [current barrier/friction/failure].

Example:

Operators need to quickly identify high-priority orders for action
because peak-season backlogs delay fulfillment,
but the current system shows raw order data with no ranking or comparison.

Use a direct user question to validate:

• "Is this the core problem, or a symptom of a deeper problem?"
• "Who specifically experiences this? How often? What's the cost?"
• "What evidence do we have this problem actually exists?"

1.2 — Root Cause Analysis (for Problem-Solving scenario)

Apply one of:

5 Whys:

Problem: [stated problem]
Why 1: [first cause]
Why 2: [cause of cause 1]
Why 3: [cause of cause 2]
Why 4: [cause of cause 3]
Why 5: [root cause] ← Fix HERE, not at Why 1

Fishbone (Ishikawa) — for systemic problems: Spine = problem statement. Bones = 6 cause categories:

• People, Process, Technology, Data, Environment, Policy
• For each bone: ask "What in this category could cause the problem?"

1.3 — JTBD (Jobs-To-Be-Done) — for New Product & Enhancement

Replace user stories with job stories to expose real motivation:

User Story (what): As an operator, I want to see order totals, so that I can make decisions.

Job Story (why + context): When I'm clearing a peak-season backlog with limited time, I want to instantly see which orders need action without opening every record, so I can make fast, defensible decisions before the cutoff.

Job Story Formula:

When [triggering situation + context],
I want to [motivation / job to be done],
so I can [outcome / expected result].

Generate 3–5 job stories covering main user segments. Each story = one opportunity.

1.4 — HMW (How Might We) Reframing

Transform problem statements into ideation-ready questions:

Formula: "How might we [verb] [object] so that [desired outcome]?"

From the POV statement:

• "How might we help HR managers rank employees so that promotion decisions take minutes not days?"
• "How might we surface hidden top performers so that managers discover talent they'd otherwise miss?"
• "How might we reduce bias in performance scoring so that promotion feels fair to all employees?"

Rules:

• Each HMW covers ONE idea direction
• Generate 5–10 HMW questions per problem
• Too broad = "How might we improve HR?" (useless) → too narrow = "How might we add a sort button?" (skip ideation, just build it)
• Sweet spot: one-concept questions that invite multiple solutions

Output of Phase 1:

• Problem statement (POV format)
• Root cause (5 Whys or Fishbone) — Problem-Solving only
• 3–5 Job Stories
• 5–10 HMW questions

---

Phase 2: Opportunity Framing — Diamond 1 Converge

Goal: Narrow problem space to highest-opportunity focus areas before ideating solutions.

2.1 — Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) — for Enhancement

Teresa Torres' framework. Maps desired outcome → opportunities → solutions → experiments.

Desired Outcome (business metric)
├── Opportunity 1 (unmet user need / pain / want)
│   ├── Solution A
│   └── Solution B
├── Opportunity 2
│   ├── Solution C
│   └── Solution D
└── Opportunity 3 (deprioritized)

Step 1: State ONE desired outcome (lagging metric the team owns — e.g., "Increase manager satisfaction with review process from 3.2 to 4.0 CSAT") Step 2: Map ALL known opportunities (pains, needs, wants) from research/interviews Step 3: For each top opportunity, generate solution directions (not detailed solutions yet) Step 4: Pick 1–2 opportunities to develop further in Phase 3

2.2 — Lean Canvas — for New Product

One-page business model for greenfield ideas (Ash Maurya):

Block	Question
Problem	Top 3 problems being solved
Customer Segments	Who has this problem? Early adopters?
Unique Value Prop	Single compelling message
Solution	Top 3 features (not full spec)
Channels	How to reach customers
Revenue Streams	How to make money
Cost Structure	Fixed + variable costs
Key Metrics	One number that measures success
Unfair Advantage	What can't easily be copied?

Fill one canvas per major target segment. Keep it to 20 min — speed is the point.

2.3 — Blue Ocean ERRC Grid — for Enhancement or New Product

Eliminate-Reduce-Raise-Create grid (Chan Kim & Mauborgne):

Eliminate	Reduce
Features users never use	Features that are over-engineered
Raise	Create
Features users want more of	Features no competitor offers

Rule: Every innovation should have at least ONE item in Create AND one in Eliminate. A product with only Raise entries is incremental — not differentiated.

2.4 — Value Proposition Canvas

Connects customer profile to product value:

Customer Profile:

• Jobs (functional, social, emotional)
• Pains (frustrations, obstacles, risks)
• Gains (benefits, desires, measures of success)

Value Map:

• Products & Services (what you offer)
• Pain Relievers (how you reduce pains)
• Gain Creators (how you produce gains)

Fit = where Pain Relievers match Pains + Gain Creators match Gains.

Output of Phase 2:

• OST with 2 selected opportunities (Enhancement)
• Lean Canvas (New Product)
• ERRC grid (New Product or Enhancement)
• Value Proposition fit assessment

---

Phase 3: Ideation — Diamond 2 Diverge

Goal: Generate maximum quantity of solution ideas without judgment. Quality comes Phase 4.

Critical rule: NO evaluation in this phase. Every idea is valid. "Yes, and..." not "Yes, but..."

3.1 — SCAMPER

Apply each lens to the problem/existing product to generate solution directions:

Letter	Prompt	Example for order-prioritization feature
Substitute	What can be replaced?	Replace manual sorting with AI-assisted ranking
Combine	What can be merged?	Combine status + history + SLA risk in one view
Adapt	What can be borrowed?	Adapt Netflix recommendation to surface priority orders
Modify	What can be scaled/shrunk?	Shrink the review queue to a daily priority check
Put to other use	Different context?	Use order history for restocking recommendations
Eliminate	What can be removed?	Eliminate the nightly batch — replace with continuous signals
Reverse	Flip the process?	Let downstream stages pull orders instead of pushing

Generate at least 2 ideas per SCAMPER letter = minimum 14 ideas.

3.2 — Crazy 8s (Rapid Visual Ideation)

Time-box: 8 minutes. 8 ideas. No refinement.

Process:

1. Fold paper into 8 sections (or create 8 boxes mentally)
2. Sketch one idea concept per box — rough is fine
3. Timer forces quantity over perfection
4. Share and build on sketches

For AI-facilitated sessions:

• AI generates 8 distinct solution directions in 2 minutes
• User picks top 3 to explore deeper
• Each direction = 1 sentence + 1 key differentiator

3.3 — Brainwriting 6-3-5

For multi-stakeholder sessions (async-friendly):

• 6 participants, 3 ideas each, 5 rounds
• Each round: read previous ideas → add 3 new ideas OR build on existing
• Result: up to 108 ideas in 30 minutes (works async via shared doc)

For AI-facilitated sessions:

• AI plays all 6 roles across 3 rounds
• Generates ideas from: PO perspective, BA perspective, End User perspective, Dev perspective, Ops perspective, Business perspective

3.4 — Impact Mapping

Gojko Adzic's technique. Maps Goal → Actors → Impacts → Deliverables:

GOAL: [business outcome with measurable target]
├── ACTOR: Who can help/hinder?
│   ├── IMPACT: How should behavior change?
│   │   └── DELIVERABLE: What feature produces this impact?
│   └── IMPACT: What negative behavior to prevent?
│       └── DELIVERABLE: What reduces this risk?
└── ACTOR: ...

Key insight: Work backward from GOAL. If a deliverable doesn't trace to an actor behavior change, don't build it.

3.5 — Analogical Thinking

"How does [industry X] solve [similar problem Y]?"

Analogy Source	Application to HR
Spotify Discover Weekly	Personalized learning recommendations
Uber surge pricing	Dynamic bonus pool allocation
GitHub PR reviews	Peer skill endorsement with evidence
Amazon recommendation engine	Next goal suggestion
Netflix "because you watched"	"Colleagues like you also achieved..."

Output of Phase 3:

• SCAMPER grid with 14+ ideas
• Crazy 8s — 8 solution directions
• Impact Map (top 2 goals)
• Analogy-inspired ideas (3–5)
• Total raw idea count: target 25–40 ideas

---

Phase 4: Evaluation & Convergence — Diamond 2 Converge

Goal: Reduce 25–40 raw ideas to a ranked shortlist of 3–5 candidates for hypothesis testing.

4.1 — Dot Voting (First Pass)

Before scoring, do a quick gut-check elimination:

• Each idea gets a ✅ (keep) / ❌ (drop) / 🔄 (merge with another)
• Merge near-identical ideas
• Drop ideas that violate hard constraints (budget, tech, legal)
• Target: reduce to 10–15 candidates

4.2 — RICE Scoring

Rank remaining candidates:

RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort

Reach:      Users affected per quarter (100 / 500 / 1000 / 5000+)
Impact:     0.25 minimal | 0.5 low | 1 medium | 2 high | 3 massive
Confidence: 0.5 low (gut feel) | 0.8 medium (some data) | 1.0 high (validated)
Effort:     Story Points — 1 trivial | 3 small | 5 medium | 8 large | 13 very large

Score all 10–15 candidates. Sort descending. Top 5 = shortlist.

4.3 — Kano Model Classification

For each shortlisted idea, classify:

Category	Description	If absent	If present	Example
Must-Be	Baseline expectation	Users angry	Users neutral	Login works
Performance	More = better	Users dissatisfied	Users satisfied	Faster load
Delighter	Unexpected value	Users neutral	Users delighted	Smart suggestion
Indifferent	Doesn't matter	Users neutral	Users neutral	Icon colors
Reverse	Some want, some don't	Segment upset	Segment happy	Auto-fill

Strategy: Must-Be → Performance → Delighter. Never skip Must-Be items for Delighters.

4.4 — Effort × Impact 2×2

Quick visual triage:

HIGH IMPACT
    │  Quick Wins ★    │  Major Projects ⚙️
    │  (do first)      │  (schedule carefully)
────┼──────────────────┼────────────────────
    │  Fill-Ins 📋     │  Money Pits ⚠️
    │  (if time)       │  (avoid or cut)
LOW IMPACT
         LOW EFFORT         HIGH EFFORT

Plot each shortlisted idea. Quick Wins = default first picks unless Major Project has strategic necessity.

4.5 — MoSCoW for Release Scope

For each idea in the shortlist, assign release priority:

Priority	Meaning	Threshold
Must Have	MVP is broken without it	Include if >80% of value depends on it
Should Have	Important but MVP works without it	Include if RICE > median
Could Have	Nice to have, low risk to cut	Include if effort ≤ 3 SP
Won't Have	Explicitly out of scope this cycle	Document for future

Output of Phase 4:

• Dot-voted shortlist (10–15 ideas)
• RICE-scored table (top 5 ranked)
• Kano classification for each shortlisted idea
• 2×2 matrix placement
• MoSCoW assignment per idea

---

Phase 5: Hypothesis Validation

Goal: Before committing to build, test riskiest assumptions. 42% of startups fail from no market need — validate before building.

5.1 — Problem Hypothesis

**We believe** [target users/persona]
**Experience** [specific problem]
**Because** [root cause]
**We'll know this is true when** [validation metric/observable evidence]

Example:

We believe Operators
Experience frustration identifying high-priority orders during peak backlogs
Because order data is fragmented across 3 systems with no unified ranking
We'll know this is true when 3+ operators confirm they spend >2hrs per shift on manual data aggregation

5.2 — Value Hypothesis

**We believe** [feature/solution]
**Will deliver** [specific value/outcome]
**To** [target users]
**We'll know we're right when** [measurable success metric]

5.3 — Riskiest Assumption Test (RAT)

Identify the ONE assumption whose failure kills the idea:

1. List all assumptions: user behavior, technical feasibility, market demand, business model
2. Score each: Probability of being wrong (0–1) × Impact if wrong (0–1)
3. Highest score = Riskiest Assumption
4. Design cheapest possible test to validate/invalidate it before full build:
   • User interview (2–3 days)
   • Landing page / fake door test (1 week)
   • Prototype click-through (3–5 days)
   • Concierge MVP (1–2 weeks)
   • Smoke test / pre-sell (2–4 weeks)

5.4 — Build-Measure-Learn Loop

For each top idea, define the loop:

BUILD: Minimum experiment to test the assumption (not a full product)
MEASURE: One metric that proves/disproves the hypothesis
LEARN: What decision do we make if metric is met / not met?
PIVOT: If hypothesis invalidated — which alternative from Phase 3 do we try next?

Output of Phase 5:

• Problem hypothesis card per top-3 idea
• Value hypothesis card per top-3 idea
• Riskiest Assumption identified per idea
• Cheapest test designed
• Build-Measure-Learn loop defined

---

Phase 6: Decision & Recommendations

Goal: Present a clear, opinionated recommendation with trade-offs. Not "here are all the options" — "here's what we recommend and why."

6.1 — Top 3 Options Table

Present final shortlist as a decision table:

Option	RICE	Kano	Effort	Risk	RAT Test	Recommendation
Option A	320	Delighter	5 SP	Medium	3-day interview	⭐ Recommended
Option B	180	Performance	8 SP	Low	Prototype	Viable
Option C	90	Must-Be	13 SP	High	Pre-sell	Defer

6.2 — Recommendation Statement

RECOMMENDED: [Option Name]

Why: [1–2 sentences on RICE + Kano + strategic fit]
Risk: [Primary risk + mitigation]
First step: [Cheapest test to validate before full commitment]
Time to validation: [Days/weeks]

6.3 — Dependency & Sequencing Check

• Does Option A depend on any existing feature/data/service not yet built?
• Can experiments run in parallel?
• What's the critical path to first validated learning?

---

Phase 7: Documentation & Handoff

Report Output

Use naming pattern from ## Naming section in injected context.

Create markdown summary report:

# Brainstorm Session Report: [Topic]

## Session Context

- Scenario: [Problem-Solving / New Product / Enhancement]
- Role: [PO / BA / Mixed]
- Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
- Input: [Original question/problem]

## Problem Statement

[POV format]

## Root Cause Analysis

[5 Whys or Fishbone — if Problem-Solving]

## Job Stories

1. [Job Story 1]
2. [Job Story 2]
3. [Job Story 3]

## HMW Questions

1. How might we...
2. How might we...

## Opportunity Map

[OST or Lean Canvas — per scenario]

## Raw Ideas Generated

[Total count: XX ideas across SCAMPER / Crazy 8s / Impact Mapping]

## Scored Shortlist (RICE)

| Rank | Idea | RICE | Kano | Effort | Priority    |
| ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ------ | ----------- |
| 1    | ...  | ...  | ...  | ...    | Must Have   |
| 2    | ...  | ...  | ...  | ...    | Should Have |

## Hypothesis Cards

### Top Recommendation: [Option Name]

- Problem Hypothesis: ...
- Value Hypothesis: ...
- Riskiest Assumption: ...
- Cheapest Test: ...
- Success Metric: ...

## Decision

[Recommendation + rationale]

## Next Steps

- [ ] [First concrete action]
- [ ] [Validation test]
- [ ] [Stakeholder alignment needed]

---

Technique Quick Reference

Technique	Phase	When to Use	Time-box
POV Statement	P1	Always	10 min
5 Whys	P1	Problem-solving scenario	15 min
Fishbone	P1	Systemic/complex problems	20 min
JTBD / Job Stories	P1	New product or enhancement	20 min
HMW Questions	P1	Always — bridge problem → ideation	15 min
Opportunity Solution Tree	P2	Enhancement scenario	30 min
Lean Canvas	P2	New product scenario	20 min
Blue Ocean ERRC	P2	Differentiation needed	20 min
Value Proposition Canvas	P2	Product-market fit unclear	25 min
SCAMPER	P3	Always — structured ideation	30 min
Crazy 8s	P3	Need quantity fast	8 min
Brainwriting 6-3-5	P3	Multi-stakeholder, async	30 min
Impact Mapping	P3	Outcome-first thinking	30 min
Analogical Thinking	P3	Novel/creative directions needed	15 min
Dot Voting	P4	First-pass elimination	10 min
RICE Scoring	P4	Always for prioritization	20 min
Kano Model	P4	Feature classification	15 min
2×2 Effort/Impact	P4	Visual triage	10 min
MoSCoW	P4	Release scoping	15 min
Problem Hypothesis	P5	Always before committing	15 min
Value Hypothesis	P5	Always before committing	15 min
Riskiest Assumption Test

---

Role-Specific Guidance

PO Mode (Outcome Focus)

• Lead with: desired business outcome → opportunities → experiments
• Use: OST, Impact Mapping, RICE, Build-Measure-Learn
• Ask: "What behavior change do we need to see in users?"
• Resist: jumping to features before validating the outcome

BA Mode (Requirements Focus)

• Lead with: stakeholder needs → process gaps → requirements
• Use: BABOK elicitation (interviews, workshops, document analysis), Fishbone, JTBD
• Ask: "What does the system need to do to enable that behavior?"
• Resist: over-specifying before the PO validates the opportunity

Mixed PO + BA Mode

• PO owns: problem statement, opportunity framing, prioritization, hypothesis
• BA owns: requirements elicitation, acceptance criteria, edge cases, process mapping
• Handoff point: after Phase 4 (scored shortlist) → BA writes acceptance criteria per idea

---

Collaboration Tools

• planner agent — research industry best practices for specific domain
• docs-manager agent — understand existing feature constraints and domain context
• WebSearch — market/competitor context for new product scenarios
• docs-seeker skill — latest documentation for external plugins/APIs
• visual analysis tooling skill — analyze visual mockups, screenshots, competitor UIs
• sequential-thinking skill — complex problem decomposition requiring structured causal chains
• web-research skill — deep market research for greenfield or competitive analysis

---

Scenario Cheat Sheets

Scenario A: Problem-Solving

1. POV Statement → 2. 5 Whys / Fishbone → 3. HMW Questions
→ 4. SCAMPER on current solution → 5. RICE scoring
→ 6. Problem Hypothesis + RAT → 7. Recommend + cheapest test

Scenario B: New Product

1. Job Stories (JTBD) → 2. Lean Canvas → 3. Blue Ocean ERRC
→ 4. HMW Questions → 5. Crazy 8s / Brainwriting
→ 6. Kano Classification → 7. Value Hypothesis + RAT → 8. MVP scope

Scenario C: Feature Enhancement

1. Job Stories (JTBD) → 2. Opportunity Solution Tree
→ 3. HMW Questions → 4. SCAMPER on existing feature
→ 5. Impact Mapping → 6. RICE scoring → 7. 2×2 matrix
→ 8. Value Hypothesis + RAT → 9. Recommend + next experiment

---

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	Better Approach
Jumping to solutions before defining problem	Builds the wrong thing	Always complete Phase 1 first
Evaluating ideas while generating them	Kills creative output, premature closure	Strict diverge/converge separation
One stakeholder perspective only	Misses jobs, pains, context	Brainwriting from 6 different roles
No hypothesis before building	42% of features fail — no market need	Always write hypothesis + RAT
RICE without confidence score	Overestimates low-evidence ideas	Always include Confidence as a multiplier
Kano ignored — building only Delighters	Users can't use a delighter with broken Must-Bes	Prioritize Must-Be → Performance → Delighter
"Best idea wins" without validation test	HiPPO bias (Highest Paid Person's Opinion)	Every top idea needs a RAT test design
Scope creep in ideation	Ideas balloon beyond what team can validate	Timebox each phase strictly
Treating RICE score as final truth	RICE is directional, not precise	Use RICE + Kano + strategic context together

---

Critical Constraints

• DO NOT implement solutions — brainstorm and advise only
• DO validate hypotheses before endorsing any approach
• DO prioritize long-term maintainability over short-term convenience
• DO consider both technical excellence and business pragmatism
• DO produce a scored, ranked shortlist — never just a flat idea list
• DO always design the cheapest validation test — RAT before full spec

---

Workflow Integration

After brainstorm session concludes, use a direct user question to present next steps:

Next Step	When	Skill/Workflow
$idea	Capture top idea as backlog artifact	idea skill
$refine	Turn top idea into actionable PBI with AC	refine skill
$web-research	Need deeper market/competitor research first	web-research skill
$plan	Problem is clear, solution is validated, ready to implement	plan skill
$design-spec	UI-heavy idea, need wireframes before spec	design-spec skill
$domain-analysis	Idea touches domain entities, need model first	domain-analysis skill
Continue brainstorming	More scenarios to explore	Stay in this session

---

[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. This prevents context loss from long sessions.

---

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via ask the user directly · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see $sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see $sequential-thinking skill.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

Closing Reminders

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Deliver a scored, ranked shortlist of 3-5 candidate ideas — each carrying a problem + value hypothesis, an identified riskiest assumption, and the cheapest validation test designed — so the team commits to the right problem AND the right solution before building, never to a flat unvalidated idea list.

Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):

• AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.

• Critical Thinking: traced file:line proof; confidence >80% to act; never guess.

• Sequential Thinking: multi-step Thought N/M with REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence closer.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect scenario + role + how-much-known via a direct user question Phase 0 FIRST — each scenario routes a different technique sequence — why: misclassifying scenario derails every downstream phase.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION separate diverge (Phases 1 & 3, generate, "Yes, and…", zero judgment) from converge (Phases 2 & 4, narrow + score) — NEVER evaluate ideas while generating them — why: mixing the two modes is the Golden Rule violation that kills creative output.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER stop at a raw or flat idea list — every top-3 candidate carries a problem + value hypothesis card, an identified riskiest assumption (RAT), and the single cheapest validation test designed before any build commitment — why: 42% of features fail from no market need; validate before building.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting; mark each completed immediately, add a final review todo — why: long brainstorm sessions lose context without external task tracking.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns first — read docs/specs/ for domain (codebase) or WebSearch for market/competitor context (greenfield) before ideating — why: ideas ungrounded in domain or market evidence score on gut feel, not fit.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite evidence for every claim, confidence >80% to recommend; RICE Confidence is a multiplier, not optional — why: low-evidence ideas without a Confidence score get over-ranked.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION close with ONE opinionated recommendation + trade-offs (Phase 6) — never a flat menu of options — why: a menu pushes the decision back on the team and invites HiPPO bias.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use a direct user question for all user decisions and handoff routing ($idea, $refine, ) — never auto-decide — why: the user owns scenario, prioritization, and next-step choices.

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Scenario is obvious, skip Phase 0 detection"	Misclassified scenario routes the wrong technique sequence. Run a direct user question first.
"Just list the ideas, evaluation can wait"	A flat idea list is the deliverable failure. Score, rank, and hypothesis-test the top 3.
"Skip the RAT — the idea is clearly good"	"Clearly good" is HiPPO bias. Design the cheapest test before any build commitment.
"Diverge and converge together to save time"	Mixing modes kills creative output — the Golden Rule violation. Keep phases separate.
"RICE without Confidence is close enough"	No Confidence multiplier over-ranks low-evidence ideas. Always score Confidence.
"Already know the domain, skip context loading"	Show docs/specs/ read or WebSearch evidence. No proof = ungrounded ideation.

MUST ATTENTION Phase 0 scenario detection FIRST · diverge/converge strictly separated · every top-3 idea carries a hypothesis + RAT + cheapest test — these three survive long sessions; re-anchor to them before recommending.

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/.ck.json + .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md (:full blocks) + .claude/scripts/lib/hookless-prompt-protocol.cjs

[WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

Generic portability boundary: Reusable skills and protocol text stay project-neutral; project-specific conventions are discovered from docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/. Apply shared AI-SDD from shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md. Read docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md, then open the project reference docs named there. For spec, test-case, behavior-change, public-contract, or docs/specs/ work, route through the local spec docs named by the docs index: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md, and workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md when specs/tests/code must stay synchronized. If either file or a required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init (or the narrow lower-level route such as $project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, or $scan --target=<key>) before ordinary project-specific work. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available.

1. DETECT: If the prompt starts with an explicit slash skill/workflow command, execute it directly. Otherwise match the prompt against the workflow catalog and skill list.
2. ANALYZE: Choose the best option: execute directly, invoke a skill, activate a standard workflow, or compose a custom step combination.
3. AUTO-SELECT: Pick the best option yourself. Do not ask the user to choose between direct execution, skill, standard workflow, or custom workflow.
4. ACTIVATE: For a selected workflow, call $start-workflow <workflowId>; for a selected skill, invoke that skill; for a custom workflow, sequence custom steps directly; for direct execution, proceed with the task.
5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow/skill/custom steps before execution when the selected path has multiple steps.
6. EXECUTE: Advance per the Workflow Step Advancement & Parallel Phases rule in your context instructions — model-driven; a sub-agent completion advances a step identically to an inline call; a parallel-phase group is an all-return barrier (advance only after ALL members return, never serialize it)

Shared AI-SDD Protocol Markers

Source: .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md

SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract

AI-SDD Artifact Contract — Shared spec-driven development rules stay portable and source-owned.

1. Keep reusable AI-SDD principles in .claude; put repository-specific paths, commands, owners, products, and formats in project config/reference docs.
2. Preserve cycle: spec -> plan -> tasks -> implement -> verify -> update spec/docs.
3. Trace every requirement or invariant through decision, task, TC/test, source evidence, and docs/spec update.
4. Treat code-to-spec extraction as reference-only until accepted by the canonical spec owner.
5. Any supported AI tool may plan, implement, review, or verify with synced context; using multiple tools is optional.
6. Update .claude source first, then sync generated mirrors; do not manually edit .agents, .codex, or AGENTS.md. — why: mirrors are generated artifacts; hand-edits are overwritten on the next sync
7. If docs/project-config.json, root instruction files, or a required project-reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.

Active reference: shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md in the active skills root.

---

SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract:reminder

• MANDATORY Apply shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md; keep reusable AI-SDD in .claude and local rules in project docs.
• MANDATORY Code-to-spec extraction is reference-only until canonical acceptance; any supported AI tool may execute with synced context.
• MANDATORY Update .claude source before syncing generated mirrors; do not manually edit .agents, .codex, or AGENTS.md.
• MANDATORY Missing or stale project config, root instruction files, or required reference docs route project-specific work through $project-init or the narrow setup route automatically. [TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY] BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.

[LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn.
6. Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security-review/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET] Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination principle: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency): Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows. Goal-driven execution: Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass. Tests verify intent: Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior.

Common AI Mistake Prevention (System Lessons)

• Re-read files after context compaction. Edit requires prior Read in same context; compaction wipes read state. Re-read before editing.
• Grep for old terms after bulk replacements. AI over-trusts find/replace completeness. Grep full repo after bulk edits for missed refs in docs/configs/catalogs.
• Check downstream references before deleting. Deletions cascade doc/code staleness. Map referencing files before removal.
• After memory loss, check existing state before creating new. Compaction wipes prior-work memory. Query current state to resume — never blindly duplicate.
• Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, method signatures. Grep to confirm existence before documenting/referencing.
• Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream consumers. Trace the full chain.
• When renaming, grep ALL consumer file types. Some file types silently ignore missing refs (no compile error). Search code, templates, configs, generated files.
• Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Code existing ≠ code executing. Trace early exits, error branches, conditional skips — not just happy path.
• Update docs that embed canonical data when source changes. Docs inlining derived data (workflows, schemas, configs) go stale silently. Update all embedding docs alongside source.
• Verify sub-agent results after context recovery. Background agents may finish while parent compacted — grep-verify output, don't trust assumed completion.
• Cross-check full target list against sub-agent assignments. Parallel sub-agents by category miss boundary items. Reconcile union of assignments against target list before proceeding.
• Sub-agents inherit knowledge only from their agent .md definition — use custom agent types, not built-in Explore. Tool adoption = permission + knowledge + enforcement (numbered workflow step).
• Persist sub-agent findings incrementally, not as a final batch. Long sub-agents hit cutoffs before final write — findings lost. Instruct append-per-section to report file.
• When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site.
• Grep ALL removed names after extraction/refactoring. Primary file "done" ≠ secondary files clean. Grep entire scope for every removed symbol before declaring complete.
• Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Pattern-matching as "wrong" skips context. Before changing any constant/limit/flag: read comments, git blame, surrounding code.