| name | brainstorm-quality |
| description | Use before offering creative options, story directions, or brainstorming ideas so proposals are original, character-driven, and beyond the familiar. |
Brainstorm Quality
Read this skill before offering any creative direction, scene idea, or story option.
Mandatory two-phase protocol
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:
- What happens (surface)
- What it costs this specific character (not any character—this one, with this desire and this fear)
- What the story learns about human experience by the time this direction concludes
If you cannot answer layer 2 and layer 3 with specifics from the StoryBible, the proposal is not ready. Go back to phase 1.
The "only this story" test
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.
How to generate directions that differ in kind
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:
- One in which a character is more alone than before
- One in which something has been given up that cannot be recovered
- One in which the relationship has permanently changed shape
The useful test: could both directions plausibly fit the same story? If yes, they are not different enough.
Structured author input
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.
Quality tests
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.
Anti-patterns
- Directions where the surface event (the fight, the escape, the argument) exhausts the meaning.
- Scenes where the character's reaction is the obvious reaction anyone would have.
- Proposals that introduce new material to generate interest rather than pressing on what is already established.
- A direction whose emotional shape could be summarized as "things get worse" or "they come to understand each other"—these are positions, not directions.
- Treating the author's stated topic ("I want to write the moment of discovery") as sufficient specification. The topic is not the scene.
