poa-possibility-analysis

name	poa - Possibility Analysis
description	Systematically explore the possibility space of what could be done.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Possibility Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Interpretations

Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:

Interpretation 1 — Explore what's possible: The user has a system, resource, or situation and wants to discover the full range of what could be done with it — they're in divergent thinking mode and need breadth before filtering. Interpretation 2 — Prioritize among known options: The user already has several possibilities in mind and needs help evaluating feasibility, value, and sequencing — they want a prioritized action plan, not more brainstorming. Interpretation 3 — Find hidden opportunities: The user suspects they're missing something — they're anchored on current usage or obvious paths and want to surface non-obvious, adjacent, or transformative possibilities they haven't considered.

If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with broadly exploring what's possible, prioritizing options you already have, or uncovering hidden opportunities — which fits?" If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.

---

Overview

Systematically explore the possibility space of what could be done. Counterpart to limitation_analysis - limitations ask "what can't we do?" while possibilities ask "what COULD we do?"

Key insight: We often under-explore possibility space because we anchor on current usage. This procedure forces broad enumeration before filtering.

Core Principle

1. Enumerate possibilities WITHOUT filtering (defer judgment)
2. Categorize by type (what kind of possibility)
3. Assess value (what would we gain)
4. Assess feasibility (what would it take)
5. Apply effort/impact gate to prioritize
6. Identify ADJACENT possibilities (small extensions of current)
7. Identify TRANSFORMATIVE possibilities (fundamental changes)

Depth Scaling

Default: 2x. Parse depth from $ARGUMENTS if specified (e.g., "/poa 4x [input]").

Depth	Min Possibilities Explored	Min Dimensions	Min Unconventional Options	Min Feasibility Checks
1x	5	2	1	1
2x	8	3	2	2
4x	12	5	3	3
8x	18	7	5	5
16x	25	10	8	7

These are floors. Go deeper where insight is dense. Compress where it's not.

---

Steps

Step 1: Define scope

Clearly state what system/resource/situation you're analyzing. Include: current purpose, current capabilities, current usage.

Step 2: Enumerate possibilities freely

Use exploration_prompts to generate possibilities. NO FILTERING - write down everything, even if it seems:

• Obvious (still worth noting)
• Impossible (might inspire adjacent ideas)
• Stupid (might not be)
• Already considered (document it anyway)

Aim for QUANTITY first. 20+ possibilities minimum.

Step 3: Categorize each possibility

For each possibility, assign a category from possibility_categories. Mark whether it's:

• ADJACENT: One step from current (high feasibility)
• DISTAL: Multiple steps away (lower feasibility, higher potential)

Step 4: Assess value of each

Rate potential value: TRANSFORMATIVE / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / NEGLIGIBLE

TRANSFORMATIVE: Changes the game entirely HIGH: Significant new capability or major improvement MEDIUM: Useful improvement, noticeable difference LOW: Minor improvement NEGLIGIBLE: Not worth the effort

Step 5: Assess feasibility of each

Rate feasibility: TRIVIAL / EASY / MODERATE / HARD / BREAKTHROUGH

TRIVIAL: < 1 hour, obvious how to do it EASY: < 1 day, clear path MODERATE: Days to weeks, some unknowns HARD: Weeks to months, significant challenges BREAKTHROUGH: Requires fundamental advance we don't have

Step 6: Apply value/feasibility prioritization

Create priority matrix:

DO FIRST: EASY/TRIVIAL feasibility + HIGH/TRANSFORMATIVE value DO SECOND: MODERATE feasibility + HIGH/TRANSFORMATIVE value EXPLORE: HARD feasibility + TRANSFORMATIVE value (worth investigating) MAYBE: EASY feasibility + MEDIUM/LOW value DEFER: HARD feasibility + MEDIUM/LOW value MOONSHOT: BREAKTHROUGH + TRANSFORMATIVE (track but don't invest yet)

Step 7: Identify the ONE thing

From DO FIRST, identify the single highest-leverage possibility. Ask: "If we could only do ONE new thing, what would it be?"

Step 8: Map dependencies

For top possibilities, identify:

• What must be true first (prerequisites)
• What this enables next (unlocks)
• What this conflicts with (tradeoffs)

Step 9: Create exploration plan

For EXPLORE items (hard but potentially transformative):

• What's the cheapest experiment to test feasibility?
• What would we need to learn first?
• What's the smallest version we could try?