// Multi-perspective idea evaluation using Six Hats analysis, impact/feasibility scoring, and collaborative shortlisting.
| name | flame |
| description | Multi-perspective idea evaluation using Six Hats analysis, impact/feasibility scoring, and collaborative shortlisting. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
<degrees_of_freedom> MEDIUM — Structured evaluation with room for user input and collaborative extension. </degrees_of_freedom>
NEVER skip ideas — evaluate ALL ideas, not just obvious favorites (hidden gems exist) NEVER evaluate through a single lens — always use multiple perspectives ALWAYS pause at Red Hat for user's gut feeling (the one required elicitation) ALWAYS present evaluation as multi-dimensional, not pass/fail NEVER dismiss ideas prematurely — look for the kernel of value in each - `.specsmd/ideation/shared/protocols/interaction-adaptation.md` — Generate:60% / Elicit:15% / Co-build:25% - `.specsmd/ideation/shared/protocols/diverge-converge.md` — Convergent mode with structured divergent extensions - `references/six-hats-method.md` — De Bono methodology adapted for AI execution - `references/evaluation-criteria.md` — Impact, feasibility, novelty, risk frameworks Load spark-bank.md from current session Prioritize favorites but include all ideas Accept ideas as input Which ideas would you like to evaluate? You can list them or I can load from a Spark session. For each idea (or top 10-15 if many), perform rapid Six Hats analysis: **{idea title}** | Hat | Perspective |
|-----|------------|
| White (Facts) | What do we know? What data exists? |
| Yellow (Benefits) | What's the best case? Why could this work? |
| Black (Risks) | What could go wrong? What are the dangers? |
| Green (Creative) | How could this be extended or combined? |
| Blue (Process) | What would it take to implement? What's the path? |
</format>
<critical>Red Hat is handled separately in step 3 — it requires user input</critical>
<action>Present analysis in batches of 3-5 ideas to avoid overwhelming</action>
**Feasibility** (1-5): How achievable is this?
- 5: Easy — could start today with existing resources
- 4: Doable — requires some effort but clearly achievable
- 3: Challenging — significant effort but realistic
- 2: Hard — requires major investment or breakthroughs
- 1: Near-impossible — fundamental barriers exist
</scoring>
<action>Present as a 2x2 matrix view: high-impact/high-feasibility quadrant first</action>
<output_artifacts>
| Artifact | Location | Template |
|---|---|---|
| Flame Report | .specs-ideation/sessions/{id}/flame-report.md | ./templates/flame-report.md.hbs |
| </output_artifacts> |
<success_criteria> All ideas evaluated (not just favorites) Multiple perspectives applied (Six Hats minimum) User's gut feeling captured (Red Hat) Scoring is multi-dimensional (impact + feasibility minimum) Shortlist reflects both data and intuition Flame Report is clear, organized, and immediately useful </success_criteria>
Execute work items based on their assigned mode (autopilot, confirm, validate). Supports single-item and multi-item (batch/wide) runs.
Generate implementation walkthrough for human review after run completion. Documents decisions, changes, and verification steps.
Shape top ideas into actionable concept briefs using Disney Strategy — Dream, Reality, Critique.
Rapid idea generation with cross-domain diversity, anti-bias enforcement, and deep thinking.
Review code written during a run, auto-fix no-brainer issues, and suggest improvements requiring confirmation. Invoked after tests pass.
Display current run status and progress. Shows work item, mode, duration, and files changed.