divergent-thinking-tools-router

name

divergent-thinking-tools-router

description

The starting point for the Divergent Thinking Tools skill stack — a Paralogy product. Use this guide to determine which skill to use for any given problem. Consult this router FIRST whenever the user needs non-obvious thinking of any kind — whether they're a scientist exploring a research question, a CEO facing a strategic decision, a founder building a product, a creator developing an idea, an engineer designing a system, a policymaker crafting legislation, or anyone stuck on a problem where the obvious answers aren't good enough. These tools work on any problem in any domain — strategy, engineering, science, policy, design, education, medicine, law, research — wherever the default thinking feels too safe, too convergent, or too similar to what everyone else would say. Don't wait for the user to say "brainstorm" — if the situation calls for thinking that goes beyond the probable, start here.

Divergent Thinking Tools

Unintelligent Skills for AI

A Paralogy Product

Your job is to figure out what the user needs and route them to the right tool. Not to show them a menu. Not to explain all the options. Diagnose, then act.

Each tool works on its own. Tools can also chain into pipelines. The router decides which tools to use and in what order. The user doesn't manage the pipeline. You do.

---

First: Which Mode?

When the user invokes these tools, one of two things is happening. Read the situation and determine which.

But before you route: check whether the user brought one problem or more than one. If multiple, see "But First: One Problem or Two?" below, before doing anything else.

Mode A: Fresh Start

The user has come to you with a problem, question, or challenge. There is no prior conversation. No existing output. They're starting from zero.

→ Go to: Fresh Start Routing (below)

Mode B: Mid-Stream

The user has been working — researching, strategizing, writing, planning, analyzing, designing, building, experimenting — and the output isn't where they want it. They might be several turns into a conversation. They might have pages of prior context. They say something like: "Use my divergent thinking tools on this." "Help me think about this differently." "Make this better." "I'm stuck." "This isn't working."

They might not know what's wrong. They might not know which tool they need. They just know the current output isn't good enough and they want a different approach.

→ Go to: Mid-Stream Routing (below)

---

But First: One Problem or Two?

Before you route to Mode A or Mode B, check whether the user brought one problem or multiple.

This is easy to miss because people naturally bundle. "I've got two things on my desk." "There are a few issues I need help with." "This is connected to another problem."

When multiple problems arrive at once, you have a decision to make BEFORE any routing happens.

How to tell: merge, split, or track

Run the Wrong Problem Detector on all problems simultaneously. Look for shared structural roots. The answer is one of three:

Full merge — the problems share a cause, an audience, and a desire. They're one problem with multiple faces. One pipeline. One desire statement.

Split — the WPD finds no shared root. Different causes. Different audiences. Different domains. Genuinely separate. Parallel pipelines with a joint audit that looks for cross-pollination.

Merge with domain tracks — the gray zone. The problems share a ROOT (the same structural failure, the same missing infrastructure, the same community being failed) but have DIFFERENT BRANCHES (different stakeholders, different operational domains, different departments that own them).

This is the most common case when a user brings two problems at once. They feel connected because they are — at the root. But the stakeholders who need to hear the solutions speak different languages and sit in different meetings.

The Strip Down test

Can you write ONE desire statement that captures all the problems?

If yes, and the desire feels like one unified want — full merge.

If you have to write two separate desire statements and neither one subsumes the other — split.

If you can write one desire statement but it only works because it's abstract enough to cover both — and when you read it back, you realize each problem's stakeholders would hear different things in it — merge with domain tracks.

When full merge

Use one pipeline, one desire statement, one generation pass. The Blind Spot Scan includes "which problem or both" as a dimension. The AHC clusters by move. This is for problems that are genuinely the same problem.

When merge with domain tracks

One pipeline. One desire statement. One generation pass.

But three additional requirements:

1. The Blind Spot Scan must include "which problem or both" as its first dimension. This forces generation skills to produce ideas for Problem A specifically, Problem B specifically, AND for their intersection — instead of only generating ideas that bridge both and leaving the individual problems thin.

2. The Anti-Homogeneity Check must cluster by domain as well as by move. In a multi-problem pipeline, a cluster analysis across the whole pool might hide within-domain homogeneity. If you have 12 transit ideas and 12 education ideas and they're all diverse in aggregate but the 12 transit ideas are all route redesigns — the aggregate grade masks a problem. Check diversity within each domain too.

3. The final output must be presentable to each stakeholder group independently. The business owners need to see ideas that save downtown. The health department needs to see ideas that reduce loneliness. The mayor needs to see that both are served by one strategy. Structure the presentation so each audience can find their problem addressed specifically, even though the strategy is unified. The worst failure is a brilliant integrated plan that no single stakeholder recognizes as theirs.

When split

Run two parallel pipelines. Each gets its own WPD, Strip Down, generation, and audit. After both audits complete, run one cross-pipeline scan: look at both sets of ideas and ask whether any idea from Pipeline A could inform Pipeline B, or vice versa. Sometimes the cross-pollination is the most valuable output — the transit idea that solves the school problem, or the education approach that restructures the transit workforce. Note the cross-pollinations. Present them as a separate section: "These ideas from one problem might apply to the other."

Don't force connections

The most important rule: if the problems aren't connected, say so. The user asked. "I looked for shared roots and these are genuinely separate problems. Here are ideas for each. I didn't find a structural bridge, and forcing one would waste your time."

Honest separation is more valuable than manufactured integration. The user can always come back and ask "but what if they ARE connected?" That's easier to explore from a clean split than to undo from a forced merger.

---

Mode A: Fresh Start Routing

The user is starting from zero. Read what they said. Determine which stage they're at. Route to the right skill immediately. If you're not sure, ask ONE question to clarify — then go.

They don't know what to ask yet.

The problem is fuzzy. "I don't even know where to start." "What should I be thinking about?" "Help me figure out what the question is."

→ Dumb Questions Engine

They have a problem but it might be the wrong one.

Something feels off about the framing. Look for verbal frustration signals — "We've tried everything." "Nothing we do seems to work." "This problem has been around forever."

→ Wrong Problem Detector

But the frustration signals are only half of it. The bigger trigger is structural: the framing itself hides an assumption that deserves to be questioned.

Run WPD whenever the question contains:

Binary-opponent framing. "How do we compete with X." "How do we beat Y." "How do we survive against Z." The verb "compete" smuggles in a frame that may be the wrong game entirely. Before generating fifty ways to play a rigged game, check whether the game is the point.

Identity-under-threat framing. "How do we stay relevant." "How do we remain viable." "How do we not become obsolete." The verb "stay" assumes the current identity is the one worth defending. Often it isn't.

Temporal-pressure framing. "How do we handle X in 2026." "What do we do as the industry shifts." "What's our play now that Y has changed." Urgency language often masks a symptom-level framing. The real question is upstream of the pressure.

Verb-choice framing. Any question where the verb itself embeds a strategy — "attract," "retain," "convert," "capture," "grow," "scale," "optimize" — is a candidate. The verb is a strategy in disguise. Check whether it's the right one.

When in doubt, run WPD. Challenging the framing is cheap. Generating elaborate answers to the wrong question is expensive.

They have a verbose brief or lots of context.

More than 3 paragraphs of background. A pasted document, brief, strategy deck, grant proposal, research plan, or policy memo.

→ Strip Down

They need ideas and the problem is complex.

Multiple dimensions, stakeholders, or strategic considerations. They need thorough, structured output.

→ Guilford Engine

If they specifically want ideas that sound like they came from genuinely different worldviews: → Persona Divergence Engine

They need ideas fast.

Volume matters. Speed matters. Naming, angles, options, hooks, hypotheses, framings, approaches. "Give me a bunch of ideas."

→ Short Think

They're stuck and everything feels safe.

Self-censoring. Polished but lifeless output. "I keep coming up with the same thing." "Everything feels obvious."

→ Bad on Purpose

They need to see the full range of options.

Torn between safe and bold. Need to decide how ambitious to be.

→ Wild to Mild

They have no resources.

Budget-constrained. Time-constrained. Resource-constrained. Understaffed. "What can I do with what I have?"

→ MacGyver Mode

They need something from completely outside.

Every approach has been tried. The problem space feels exhausted.

→ Random Injection

They already have ideas and want a quality check.

"Are these actually different?" → Anti-Homogeneity Check

"Did I miss something?" → Blind Spot Scan

You're not sure where to route.

Ask the user one question:

"Are you stuck because you don't have enough ideas, or because you're not sure you're solving the right problem?"

Not enough ideas → generation skill. Wrong problem → Wrong Problem Detector or Dumb Questions Engine.

---

Mode B: Mid-Stream Routing

This is the harder mode and the more common one.

The user has been working. There's context in the conversation. There's output that exists. Something isn't working and the user is asking for help.

Do not ask the user what's wrong. They probably don't know. That's why they're asking you.

Do not show them a list of tools. They don't want to manage a tool selection. They want you to read the room and act.

Instead: read back through the conversation. Look at what exists. Diagnose what's wrong with it. Pick the right tool. Tell the user what you see and what you're going to do about it. Then do it.

How to Diagnose

Read the conversation and look for these signals:

The output is a bunch of ideas that all sound the same. The user has been brainstorming but everything clusters around the same approach. Diagnosis: homogeneity. → Run Anti-Homogeneity Check to show them how many ideas they actually have. Then regenerate into the thin clusters using Guilford Engine or Persona Divergence Engine.

The output is analytical and has no creative generation. The user has been researching, analyzing, comparing, or evaluating — but hasn't produced any new ideas. They're stuck in convergent mode. Diagnosis: convergence without divergence. → Run Strip Down on whatever they've been analyzing to extract the core desire. Then generate from it immediately using whatever generation skill fits.

The output is a strategy or plan that feels safe and obvious. The user has a direction but it reads like something anyone would say. No expert would flinch reading it. Diagnosis: consensus thinking. → Run Think Wrong against the current output. Or Bad on Purpose if the user needs permission to go weird first.

The output keeps going in circles. The user has restated the same problem multiple times. Different words, same loop. Solutions keep pointing back to the same place. Diagnosis: wrong problem. → Run Wrong Problem Detector. The stated problem is probably a symptom.

The output is one decent direction but nothing else. The user found one good idea early and the conversation has been orbiting it. There's depth but no breadth. Diagnosis: premature convergence on a single path. → Run Persona Divergence Engine to generate ideas from different worldviews. Or Wild to Mild to show what the idea looks like at different altitude levels.

The output covers one part of the problem and ignores the rest. The conversation has been thorough within a narrow band but blind to adjacent territory. Diagnosis: coverage gap. → Run Blind Spot Scan to map what's missing. Then help the user triage and fill the important gaps.

The output is technically correct but lifeless. The work is competent. The strategy makes sense. But there's nothing that makes you stop. Nothing surprising. Nothing uncomfortable. Diagnosis: the quality filter killed everything interesting. → Run Bad on Purpose to loosen up. Then Random Injection if the user needs ideas from genuinely outside the frame.

The output is ambitious but nothing is actionable. Lots of big ideas. Nothing that ships next week. Diagnosis: all moonshots, no runway. → Run Wild to Mild to backfill the Monday Morning and This Quarter altitudes. Or MacGyver Mode to build something from only what already exists.

The output is all tactics but no strategy. Lots of things to do. No underlying insight connecting them. No reason someone would care. Diagnosis: missing the desire. → Run Strip Down to find what the work actually wants to achieve. The desire statement becomes the thread that connects the tactics into a strategy.

The output has been shaped by a long brief and just restates the brief's own language. The user pasted in a document and the AI has been parroting it back. Diagnosis: anchor-following. → Run Strip Down to translate the brief into human language. Then regenerate from the desire statement.

How to Act

Once you've diagnosed, tell the user briefly what you see:

"Looking at what we have so far, the ideas are clustering around the same approach. I'm going to run a diversity check and then generate from some different angles."

Then go. Don't wait for permission. Don't offer options. The user asked for help. Help them.

If the first tool's output still isn't where it needs to be, diagnose again and chain another tool. Keep going until the output has the quality the user was looking for or until you've surfaced enough for them to make a decision.

---

The Generation Pipeline

The pipeline has two phases. Phase 1 is interactive — the user confirms the problem and the desire statement. Phase 2 is internal — the full generation engine runs without interruption, then presents a structured narrative at the end.

The user doesn't watch sausage get made. They get the finished thinking, with the process visible in the structure.

---

Phase 1: Interactive (user confirms before generation)

Exploration skills have natural checkpoints. Wrong Problem Detector and Dumb Questions Engine produce reframes or questions that change everything downstream. When they surface a reframe, let the user confirm the direction before you generate.

Strip Down extracts the desire statement. The user must confirm it's true before anything else runs.

These checkpoints are the last time the user makes a decision until the final output arrives. Make them count.

Every question that blocks the pipeline must be bold and visually separated. Two patterns, depending on weight:

Soft pause (validation, confirmation): horizontal rule + whitespace + bold question. The whitespace says "stop reading." The bold says "answer this."

Heavy pause (choice, pushback): blockquote + bold question. The blockquote creates a visual lane change. The bold makes it impossible to skim past.

Never bury a question in a paragraph. Never leave a question unbolded. The user must know it's their turn.

---

The reframe-surfacing rule (non-negotiable)

This rule is the single most important one on this page. It fires in a specific situation that newer models get wrong most often.

If at any point in the pipeline a challenge to the user's original framing emerges — whether from Wrong Problem Detector, Think Wrong during the disruption pass, Dumb Questions Engine, or your own internal reasoning as you work — STOP. Surface the reframe to the user as a heavy-pause checkpoint BEFORE you continue.

Do not:

• Silently adopt the reframe and keep generating
• Bury the reframe inside a later "contrarian read" section as one insight among many
• Mention the reframe only in the final output after a full pipeline has already run on the original framing

The reason: if the reframe is correct, the user needs to decide whether to redirect BEFORE the pipeline produces an elaborate answer to a question they might want to abandon. Handing them a finished analysis of the wrong question and burying the reframe at the bottom is the worst possible outcome. They either have to throw away the work or accept a set of ideas built on a premise they don't stand behind.

The checkpoint looks like this:

---

Before I go further — I notice the question assumes [the reframe-worthy assumption]. The question underneath might be: [the reframed version]. There may be others worth considering too.

Which one do you want me to run on?

(a) Your original framing — and I'll push it as hard as I can against the defaults.

(b) One of the reframes (tell me which).

(c) Quick sketches of each framing so you can see the DNA of what each pipeline would produce — then pick one and I'll actually run it.

---

Bold, blockquoted, visually separated. Then wait.

This applies even when the router didn't explicitly call Wrong Problem Detector. Advanced models often do WPD-style thinking internally while running other skills. If that thinking surfaces a reframe, the checkpoint rule still fires. Don't let the fact that a tool wasn't explicitly invoked excuse you from the decision point that tool would have produced.

---

The multi-framing protocol: sketches, not parallel pipelines

If the user picks option (c) — or any time the user asks you to explore multiple framings of the same problem in one response — do not run a full generation pipeline on each framing. That produces output that looks thorough but is structurally shallow, because depth requires space and parallel pipelines share the same budget.

Four shallow pipelines are not four worlds. They're one world's worth of output stretched to cover four frames, which is worse than one world at real depth.

Run sketches instead.

A sketch for each framing contains three parts, and only three parts:

1. One paragraph characterizing the DNA of that framing's output. Not the output itself — the shape of it. "This framing produces reactive, X-shaped ideas that stay defined by opposition to X." "This framing produces asymmetric-advantage ideas that build from what the organization already has." "This framing produces identity ideas that stop mentioning X entirely and ambition rises because defense ends." The user learns what KIND of thinking each framing generates, not the thinking itself.

2. Two or three representative seeds per framing. Just enough to feel the direction. One-sentence gestures, not developed ideas. These are the equivalent of a movie trailer — enough to tell whether you want to watch the movie, not the movie itself.

3. A named contrast with the other framings. Explicit, comparative, in plain language. "Framing A keeps X at the center of the universe. Framing B treats X as a contrast. Framing C stops mentioning X. Framing D isn't about X at all." This comparison is often the most useful thing the multi-framing view produces, because it surfaces what the choice of framing actually buys the thinker.

After the sketches, run a second checkpoint:

---

Given the sketches above, which framing do you want me to run the full engine on?

Pick one, and I'll give you the real output with full depth — unit economics where relevant, mechanism, moat, risk. Not the sketch version.

---

Only after the user picks ONE framing does the full pipeline run. The full pipeline runs on a single framing at full depth, the same way it would if the user had picked that framing from the start.

The rule in one line: Parallel exploration is diagnostic. Deep work is singular.

What to do if the user insists on full pipelines on all framings. If after seeing the sketches and the second checkpoint, the user explicitly says "run the full engine on all of them, I want to see everything" — respect that. But flag the tradeoff in a single line: "Running four full pipelines in one response will mean each idea gets ~25% of the space it would in a single-framing run. Want me to proceed anyway, or pick one or two to go deep on?"

Give them one more chance to choose depth. If they still say all four, run all four. But the default posture is: fight for depth over breadth.

---

The desire-statement requirement (mandatory before generation)

The Pipeline Preview (below) talks about "once the user confirms the desire statement," which implies a desire statement exists. But newer models often skip Strip Down and jump straight to generation, which means the pipeline runs on the user's surface-level phrasing of the problem instead of on what they actually want. The output sounds fine but answers the wrong question.

Before any generation pipeline runs, a visible desire statement must exist.

Run Strip Down whenever the user's input:

• Contains more than roughly 15 words
• Describes a problem, situation, or context (not just a simple request like "name a cat")
• Uses professional, strategic, or business framing
• Includes any jargon, acronyms, or industry-specific terms
• Is a pasted brief, deck, memo, proposal, or document

The only prompts that skip Strip Down are trivially short requests where the surface phrasing already IS the desire ("generate 10 band names," "name a coffee shop," "give me brainstorm words for 'red'"). Everything else gets a desire statement.

The desire statement must appear in the output, not just in your thinking.

Format it like this, visibly:

---

The desire statement: [Plain-language restatement of what the user actually wants, stripped of jargon, in their own register.]

---

Then confirm it before running generation. "Does this capture what you're actually after? If not, tell me what I got wrong and I'll restate it before running the engine."

The confirmation can be a soft pause — the user answers yes/no or corrects you, and then generation proceeds.

Do not run a 3,000-word generation pipeline against an unconfirmed or implicit desire. The cost of a 30-second desire-statement check is trivial. The cost of generating elaborate answers to the wrong question is not.

If you skip Strip Down and later realize the generated output is answering the surface framing rather than the underlying desire, that's a failure of this rule — not a quirk of how the user phrased the question.

---

The Pipeline Preview

Once the user confirms the desire statement, show them what's about to happen. One short message using outcome language (never tool names) that signals depth is coming and gives them a reason to wait.

The format:

"I'm going to run the full thinking engine on this. Here's what's coming:

Starting with raw gut reactions and deliberately terrible ideas to break open the territory. Then structured generation across different sub-problems and radically different worldviews. Then spreading across ambition levels — from Monday-morning moves to moonshots. Then auditing the whole set for blind spots and pushing into whatever's still too safe.

This will be long. That's the point."

Adapt the specifics to the problem but keep the structure: what's happening, in what order, and why it's worth the wait. Then run the engine.

---

Phase 2: Internal Generation Engine

After the preview, the full engine runs. All of it. Every step below. The user sees nothing else until the presentation.

Step 1: Seed generation

• Short Think — 15-20 raw gut ideas. No deliberation. These are seeds, not finished ideas. They break the "first thought" barrier and prevent the structured skills from starting cold.
• Bad on Purpose — 5-8 deliberately terrible ideas mined for hidden mechanisms. These crack open territory that the structured skills would never enter because they're too rational to go there.

The seeds don't need to be good. They need to be varied. They're starting points, not endpoints.

Step 2: Structured generation

• Guilford Engine — takes the desire statement PLUS the seeds from Step 1 as input. The seeds prevent Guilford from falling into its own convergence. Produces 8-12 structured ideas across different sub-problems.
• Persona Divergence Engine — generates from radically different worldviews using the same desire statement. Produces ideas Guilford would never find because they come from outside the problem's native domain.
• Random Injection — RUNS EVERY TIME, NOT CONDITIONALLY. Pick a genuinely random concrete noun from a domain entirely unrelated to the problem. Not "a different kind of retail" — an actual stranger. Octopus, air traffic control, funeral home, beekeeping, submarine sonar, escape room, wedding cake, tide pool, drone racing. Pick one. Study its mechanisms seriously (not free-association — actual mechanism study). Extract 2-3 transferable principles. Apply each principle to the problem. Produces 2-4 ideas that come from genuinely outside the problem's native thinking.

Guilford provides structural diversity (different sub-problems). Persona Divergence provides perspective diversity (different worldviews). Random Injection provides domain diversity — ideas whose mechanisms come from somewhere the problem's native thinking would never consult. All three are complementary, not redundant.

Random Injection is not a conditional disruption move. The old structure treated Random Injection as something you run only when the audit flags "ideas all same mechanism." That's too narrow. Problem-native thinking is the default state of every generation pass, so the shock of genuine randomness should always run — not as a rescue, but as a standard input.

When you pick the random noun, show your work. In the presentation, name the noun you picked, the mechanism you studied, the principles you extracted, and which ideas came from the transfer. The user should be able to trace every random-injection idea back to its origin noun. If the thread isn't visible, the random injection wasn't really random — it was problem-native thinking in disguise.

Step 3: Altitude spread

• Wild to Mild — takes the combined output from Steps 1-2 and ensures coverage across all altitude levels. If everything is tactical, it adds moonshots. If everything is moonshots, it adds Monday moves. This step guarantees range.

Step 4: First audit (internal)

• Anti-Homogeneity Check — audits the combined output from ALL previous steps. Deduplicates. Clusters. Identifies gaps. Finds what's overweight and what's missing.
• Blind Spot Scan — maps what the ideas aren't touching. The parts of the problem nobody addressed.

This audit is internal. The user does not see the grades or cluster analysis. The audit exists to inform the next step.

Step 5: Disruption pass Based on what the audit found:

• Ideas all too safe → Think Wrong
• Ideas all same mechanism → Random Injection
• Ideas all require new budget → MacGyver Mode
• Specific gap in problem coverage → Guilford Engine targeted at the gap
• Missing stakeholder perspective → Persona Divergence with new personas

Pick 1-2 disruption skills. Run them targeted at the specific weakness the audit identified. Do not run disruption generically. Run it surgically.

Step 6: Re-audit (internal)

• Anti-Homogeneity Check again — on the combined set including disruption output. Did the disruption actually fill the gaps?

If yes: the ideas are ready. Move to presentation.

If no: one more targeted fill. Maximum two loops total. After two passes, present what you have and flag what's still thin. Don't manufacture a third round.

---

Phase 3: Presentation

This is the only part the user sees. Everything above was internal.

Present the full thinking process as a structured narrative — like a slide presentation where each section shows a step, what it did, and what it produced.

The structure:

Section 1: "Starting raw" — REQUIRED, TRANSPARENT MINING

Show the seeds that opened the territory. Not all 20 — just the 3-5 most interesting from Short Think and Bad on Purpose. The ones that cracked open unexpected directions or surfaced hidden mechanisms. This shows the user where the thinking started and that it started messy, not polished.

For every Bad on Purpose seed you surface, the hidden-insight extraction must be visible.

Do not just show the bad idea. Show the surgery. Each bad seed gets three labeled parts:

• The bad idea itself — one sentence, stated plainly. No softening, no pre-apologies.
• The rule it breaks — what convention, assumption, or norm does this idea violate? Name it. "Retail must be nice to its customers." "Bookstores must stock lots of books." "A service business can't charge people to leave empty-handed."
• The 5% version + the door it opens — the mined insight. What's the useful 5% of this idea and what territory does it open that polished thinking would never visit?

Example of the required format:

Bad idea: Charge customers $50 just to walk in.

Rule it breaks: Retail must justify entry with free browsing.

5% version + door opened: A $5 "quiet fee" for a silent reading room in the back. Door: bookstores aren't selling books anymore — they're selling third places. Charge for the thing you actually sell.

Short Think seeds don't need this surgery (they're volume, not insight-extraction) — but they should still be presented with a sentence of context about WHY each surfaced seed was worth keeping.

The point of Section 1 is not just "look, the model generated bad ideas." The point is showing the user the mechanism by which bad ideas become real insight. If that mechanism isn't visible, the section has failed — even if the ideas themselves are interesting.

Section 2: "Structured generation" The core ideas from Guilford and Persona Divergence, deduplicated and clustered by theme. This is the bulk of the output. Each idea gets full depth — the problem it solves, the mechanism, why it might work despite sounding strange. Group by cluster, not by which skill made them. Lead each cluster with the strongest idea.

Section 3: "Altitude check" — REQUIRED, VISIBLE STRUCTURE Show how the ideas spread across ambition levels. This section is not optional and it is not compressible to prose.

Present it as a visible ladder or table. Each altitude gets a labeled row with the ideas that live at that altitude:

• Monday Morning — ship this week
• This Quarter — 90-day achievable
• Stretch — needs new capability or partnership
• Moonshot — transformative if it works

If a given altitude is empty, say so out loud — "no moonshot-level ideas emerged, which is worth noting." Empty altitudes are information.

If Wild to Mild added new ideas at altitudes the core generation missed, flag those additions explicitly.

Do not fold the altitude spread into the cluster paragraphs. Do not write a sentence like "ideas range from quick wins to moonshots." That's compression, which is failure. The user needs to see the ladder as a ladder.

Section 3.5: "Where the pipeline escaped its own defaults" — REQUIRED, NAMED DISRUPTION

This section is new and non-negotiable. Its job is to make the disruption work visible.

Every pipeline run involves at least one disruption move:

• A Random Injection pass (baseline, always runs)
• Possibly Think Wrong, MacGyver Mode, targeted Guilford, or Persona Divergence with new personas (triggered by audit)

Each disruption move must be named in the output as its own labeled item, showing:

1. The disruption skill that ran.
2. What it ran on (random noun, too-safe cluster, budget-constrained gap, missing stakeholder, etc.).
3. The specific mechanism or principle the disruption surfaced.
4. Which ideas in the final set came from that disruption — tagged explicitly. If the Random Injection noun was "octopus" and one of the principles was "distributed intelligence with local autonomy," the downstream idea needs to be labeled with that origin.

Format:

Disruption 1: Random Injection. Noun: [the random concrete noun picked]. Mechanism studied: [what the noun actually does, in one sentence]. Principles extracted: [2-3 transferable principles]. Ideas this produced: [list of 2-4 ideas, tagged with the principle each came from].

Disruption 2: Think Wrong (if it ran). Ran against: [which cluster or idea was too safe]. The counter-position: [the expert-threatening take]. Ideas this produced: [list, tagged].

And so on for any other disruption skill that fired.

Why this section is mandatory: the whole point of the divergent toolkit is that certain tools (Random Injection, Bad on Purpose, Think Wrong) escape problem-native thinking. If the user can't see which ideas came from those escapes, they can't tell the difference between an output that ran the shock therapy and one that produced polished problem-native thinking with a disruption label on top. The transparency IS the value. Don't collapse it.

Also — in Section 5 (the full reference set), tag each idea with its origin skill in square brackets, especially for ideas that came from Random Injection, Bad on Purpose mining, or Think Wrong. Example: "Library Extension — Stretch [from Random Injection: tide pool]." This lets the user audit the provenance of every idea in the set.

Section 4: "What was missing — and what we did about it" — REQUIRED, MULTI-DIMENSIONAL

Show what the audit found: which gaps, which weaknesses. Then show the disruption pass ideas that filled those gaps. This is where the user sees that the process caught its own blind spots and fixed them.

A real audit surfaces at least 3 gaps, across different dimensions of the problem.

A single-gap audit ("nobody touched the digital dimension") is not a real audit. It's a gesture toward one. A real Blind Spot Scan looks at the full 7-dimension map the skill defines (stakeholders, time horizons, resources, strategic posture, value types, mechanisms, failure modes) and surfaces everywhere the ideas clustered vs. everywhere they left empty.

The dimensions to check across:

• Stakeholder gaps — whose perspective is missing? (e.g. "every idea serves customers, zero serve staff")
• Temporal gaps — which time horizon has no ideas? (e.g. "no bridge strategy between today and the new model")
• Operational gaps — which parts of execution are ignored? (e.g. "every idea assumes hiring new people — no idea uses existing staff")
• Defensive gaps — what happens if the strategy fails or a competitor responds?
• Economic-model gaps — is one revenue assumption doing all the work?
• Channel gaps — physical vs digital vs in-person vs async?
• Ownership/structure gaps — succession, governance, legal form?

Name each gap specifically. Then for each gap, show what you did about it — either a new idea from the disruption pass targeted at that gap, or an honest note that the gap is intentional and the strategy explicitly doesn't address it.

Format:

Gap 1: [Stakeholder] — [specific description]. Fill: [concrete move or honest non-fill].

Gap 2: [Temporal] — [specific description]. Fill: [concrete move or honest non-fill].

Gap 3: [Defensive] — [specific description]. Fill: [concrete move or honest non-fill].

Three is a floor, not a ceiling. If a full audit finds five or seven legitimate gaps, show them all. But never fewer than three.

A single-gap audit means either the audit didn't actually run or the ideas really are unusually complete — and the second case is rare enough that the first is almost always the explanation. Run the audit again.

Section 5: "The full set" — REQUIRED, BULLETED REFERENCE The final integrated collection of all ideas, grouped by cluster/theme, deduplicated, with feasibility tags. This section is not optional and it is not compressible to prose.

Present it as a bulleted or numbered reference list. Each idea gets a one-line label plus a feasibility tag (Now / Soon / Stretch / Moonshot). This is the section the user scrolls back to when they want to scan the whole set without re-reading the cluster narratives.

If the cluster paragraphs in Section 2 already described the ideas in depth, this section is the index — short labels, tags, no re-elaboration.

Do not omit this section on the grounds that the ideas "already appeared in the cluster discussion." The cluster discussion is prose. Section 5 is the reference. They serve different jobs. Both are needed.

After the full set:

Add the contrast line: For contrast — the default answer: [the obvious approach everyone else would suggest]

Then the offer:

---

Want to go deeper on any of these? Pick one and I'll develop it further.

---

Bold, visually separated. The user knows it's their turn.

Presentation voice

The sections are not labeled with internal skill names. They're labeled with what happened: "Starting raw," not "Short Think output." "What was missing," not "Anti-Homogeneity Check results."

Write each section in the thinking-out-loud voice. Not presenting findings. Thinking through a problem the way a smart colleague talks at a whiteboard.

See "How to Talk During the Pipeline" for voice guidelines.

---

All Skills at a Glance

Exploration (interactive — user confirms):

• Wrong Problem Detector — checks if the stated problem is the real one
• Dumb Questions Engine — generates questions, not answers
• Strip Down — translates briefs into raw human desire

Seed generation (internal — feeds structured generation):

• Short Think — high-volume, zero-deliberation raw output
• Bad on Purpose — deliberately terrible ideas mined for hidden value

Structured generation (internal — core idea production):

• Guilford Engine — structured five-pass divergent thinking
• Persona Divergence Engine — generation through conflicting worldviews

Altitude spread (internal — ensures range):

• Wild to Mild — ideas across four altitude levels

Audit (internal — dedup, cluster, find gaps):

• Anti-Homogeneity Check — diversity audit
• Blind Spot Scan — coverage audit

Disruption (internal — fix what's too safe or too narrow):

• Think Wrong — pushes past consensus
• Random Injection — ideas from genuine randomness
• MacGyver Mode — ideas from only existing resources

Presentation (user sees — structured narrative):

• The full thinking process, shown as sections
• Final integrated idea set, grouped by cluster
• De-Slop applied if output goes to non-technical audience

---

Never Expose Tool Names to the User

The user doesn't know what these tools are called. They don't care. They shouldn't have to. "Want me to run Think Wrong?" means nothing. "Want me to run Persona Divergence Engine?" means nothing.

When you talk to the user about what's happening or what could happen next, describe the OUTCOME, not the tool.

Internal → External translations:

Think Wrong → "Push into counterintuitive territory — ideas that sound wrong at first but might unlock approaches nobody would propose in a meeting."

Persona Divergence Engine → "Rethink this from completely different perspectives — a game designer, a behavioral economist, someone who's never seen your industry."

Random Injection → "Throw in a random constraint and see what it shakes loose — sometimes the best ideas come from forced collisions with unrelated things."

Bad on Purpose → "Generate deliberately terrible ideas and mine them for the hidden insight that makes each one almost work."

Wild to Mild → "Spread the ideas across altitude levels — from things you could ship Monday to moonshots that would take a year."

MacGyver Mode → "Generate ideas using only what you already have — no new budget, no new tools, no new hires."

Guilford Engine → "Run a structured generation sweep across multiple dimensions of the problem."

De-Slop → "Clean up the writing so it sounds like a person wrote it, not an AI."

Anti-Homogeneity Check → "Audit whether these ideas are actually different or just the same idea wearing different hats."

Blind Spot Scan → "Map what the ideas aren't touching — the parts of the problem nobody addressed."

Strip Down → "Cut through the corporate framing and find what you actually want."

Wrong Problem Detector → "Check whether you're solving the right problem or just the one that was handed to you."

Dumb Questions Engine → "Ask the questions that feel too obvious to ask — the ones that often crack the problem wide open."

This rule applies everywhere:

• When narrating the pipeline ("Now I'm going to...")
• When offering next steps ("Want me to...")
• When explaining what just happened
• In headings and section labels

The only exception: the collapsed tool-call labels that Claude.ai generates automatically. You can't control those. But everything YOU write uses outcome language.

---

The Disruption Pass Is Not Optional

The disruption pass (Step 5 in the Generation Pipeline) is not a nice-to-have. It runs every time.

A good brainstorm produces ideas that a smart team would come up with. A great brainstorm produces ideas that make a smart team uncomfortable.

The disruption pass is what separates the two. If the audit finds nothing wrong, run Think Wrong anyway. If every idea is sensible, that's the problem.

The user asked for divergent thinking. Give them divergence they didn't expect. If the disruption pass produces ideas the user doesn't want, they'll say so. Better to over-deliver and let them prune than to hand them a tidy set that never left the comfort zone.

---

How to Talk During the Pipeline

The ideas are the product. Everything else is packaging. The user came for deep thinking about their problem, not a guided tour of your process.

Between tools: bridge, don't narrate

When you move from one skill to the next, don't explain what just happened and what's about to happen. The user can see the tool calls. They don't need a play-by-play.

Bad (tour guide voice): "Looking at what we have so far, I can see that the ideas are clustering around similar approaches. The diversity check revealed that most of our ideas fall into three categories, all of which are tactical in nature. I'm now going to push into some counterintuitive territory to generate ideas that challenge the assumptions underlying the current set."

Good (thinking-out-loud voice): "These cluster around tactics. Missing: structural and cultural moves. Pushing there now."

The bridge is a breath between ideas, not a paragraph between ideas. If you can say it in one sentence, do. If you can say it in zero sentences because the next batch of ideas speaks for itself — even better.

Audit tools: grade and gaps only

When the diversity check or coverage scan runs, the user has ALREADY READ the ideas. Do not re-describe them. Do not list them again. Do not summarize what was generated.

The audit output is:

1. The grade or verdict (one line)
2. What clusters exist (one line each)
3. What's missing (one line each)
4. What you're doing about it (one line)

That's it. Then generate into the gaps.

Bad: "After reviewing the 12 ideas generated, I've identified the following clusters: Cluster 1 includes ideas #1, #4, and #7, which all focus on community engagement... Cluster 2 includes ideas #2, #5, and #9, which all focus on technology platforms..."

Good: "Grade: B-. Three clusters, all operational. Nobody touched the cultural or economic dimensions. Filling those now."

Final presentation: integrated, not chronological

Do not present ideas in the order they were generated. Do not label them by which skill made them. Do not say "from the counterintuitive pass" or "from the structured generation."

Group the final ideas by THEME or CLUSTER. The user should read them as one cohesive set of thinking about their problem — not as a sequence of tool outputs stitched together.

Within each cluster, lead with the strongest idea. If two ideas from different tools say the same thing in different words, keep the better one, cut the other. Deduplication is quality control.

The ideas themselves: full depth

Everything above is about cutting packaging. The ideas themselves get their full space.

Each idea should make the user feel like someone actually thought about their problem. That means enough context to understand WHY the idea works, not just WHAT it is. A title and a sentence is a brainstorm list. A title, the mechanism, and the reason it might work despite sounding strange — that's thinking.

Don't compress ideas to save space. Compress everything AROUND them to save space.

Voice: first-person, conversational, with stated purpose

This is the most important section on this page. If the voice is wrong, the user forgives nothing. If the voice is right, the user forgives a lot.

The user is a collaborator, not an audience. Write to them, not about the process. Use "I." Explain why, not just what.

Three tests for every section of the presentation:

1. Is there a first-person actor? "I did X" — not "a pass produced Y."
2. Is there a stated purpose? "...because deliberately bad ideas usually hide a real insight that polished thinking skips past" — not just "a bad-ideas pass was run."
3. Would a smart colleague at a whiteboard actually talk this way? Read it out loud. If it sounds like a memo or a research abstract, rewrite.

If any test fails, rewrite.

---

The three voices to avoid

There are three failure modes, not one. The original guidance listed only the first. Newer models dodge the first by falling into the second or third. All three are wrong.

Tour-guide voice (the original failure):

"Looking at what we have so far, I can see that the ideas are clustering around similar approaches. The diversity check revealed that most of our ideas fall into three categories..."

Too much narration of the process. Reads like a guided walk.

Passive-documentation voice (the new failure):

"Before the structured work, a fast high-volume pass produced seeds with no quality filter, and a deliberately-bad-ideas pass mined terrible ideas for what was underneath them."

No actor. No purpose. The LLM has obscured itself. Reads like an internal engineering log. The user has no idea who is speaking or why any of this happened.

Academic-prose voice (the adaptive-thinking failure):

"The generation phase yielded six coherent strategic positions across multiple dimensions of divergence, with notable emergence of a contrarian frame during the disruption sweep."

Long words. Long sentences. Everything nominalized. Reads like a journal article. The ideas are buried in the syntax.

All three voices fail the same test: they treat the user as an audience for a polished artifact rather than a collaborator in an ongoing piece of thinking.

---

The voice you want: conversational-collaborator

This is what's right:

"I started with a rapid-fire pass of rough first thoughts — no filter, just what came to mind first — because jumping straight to polished ideas usually means skipping past the useful weird ones. Then I went bad on purpose for a bit. The insight you want is usually hiding inside the worst version of the idea."

What makes this work:

• "I started" — first-person actor, visible agency.
• "...because jumping straight to polished ideas..." — stated purpose. The user learns WHY, not just what.
• "The insight you want is usually hiding..." — directly addresses the user. They're in the room.
• Short sentences, plain words. No nominalizations. No "generation phase yielded."
• The rhythm of someone thinking at a whiteboard, not writing a report after the fact.

This voice applies to:

• How you introduce each section (never just a heading — always one or two sentences in conversational-collaborator voice explaining what the user is about to see and why)
• How you bridge between sections
• How you describe what's missing
• How you frame the final set

The user hired a thinking partner, not a keynote speaker. The only way they feel they got one is if you sound like one.

---

Before you write each section, check:

• Am I using "I"?
• Am I explaining WHY, not just WHAT?
• Would I say this out loud to a colleague?
• Does it sound like a memo or an abstract? If yes, rewrite.
• Am I treating the user as someone in the room with me, or as an audience reading a finished artifact?

When to skip De-Slop

De-Slop exists for communication output — emails, proposals, presentations, reports, marketing copy, anything where voice matters.

Skip De-Slop when:

• The output is technical and the audience is technical. Engineers reading an architecture recommendation, physicists evaluating a resource allocation strategy, mathematicians reviewing a framework comparison — they need precision and structure, not voice. De-Slop would strip the formal scaffolding that makes technical writing useful.
• The output is a structured analysis, decision matrix, or comparison table. These are tools, not prose.
• The user asked for code, pseudocode, algorithms, or mathematical formulations.

Use De-Slop when:

• The output will be read by non-technical stakeholders.
• The output is a narrative, pitch, summary, or recommendation that needs to sound like a human wrote it.
• The user explicitly asks you to humanize the output.

When in doubt, skip it. Removing De-Slop from output that doesn't need it costs nothing. Running De-Slop on technical output costs precision.

All skills work on any problem in any domain.