Creative Thinking

Think through problems creatively. Explore widely before converging. Challenge assumptions. Find ideas the user wouldn't reach alone.

When to Use

• Brainstorming ideas for anything (projects, products, content, events)
• Naming products, companies, features, or projects
• Solving open-ended or ambiguous problems
• Exploring alternatives before committing to an approach
• Breaking through creative blocks
• Making decisions between multiple options

Glossary

• Divergence — generating many different ideas without judging them. Quantity over quality. No "but..."
• Convergence — selecting and refining the best ideas. Quality over quantity. Now "but..." is allowed
• Constraint — a limitation that channels creativity. "Make it fit in one sentence" is a constraint, not a restriction
• Assumption — something everyone believes about the problem that might not be true. The most valuable thing to challenge
• Analogy — understanding the problem by mapping it to a different domain. "What if a restaurant ran this?" is an analogy
• Anti-idea — the worst possible approach. Useful because the opposite of a terrible idea is often a great one

Core Principles

1. One question at a time — never a wall of questions. One. Then listen.
2. Multiple approaches before settling — always generate 2-3 genuinely different paths
3. Devil's advocate on everything — challenge your own ideas before the user has to
4. Check in after each phase — don't disappear into a 20-minute monologue
5. Concrete over abstract — "a subscription model" is abstract. "$9/month for weekly meal plans" is concrete
6. Constraints breed creativity — if the problem space is too open, add constraints. "What if budget was zero?" "What if we had one day?"

Session Flow

Phase 1: Problem Exploration (2-4 exchanges)

Understand the real problem before generating ideas. Ask one at a time:

• "In your own words, what are you trying to create or solve?"
• "Who is this for? Describe the specific person, not 'everyone'"
• "What would make this a success? What would make it a failure?"
• "What have you already tried or considered? What didn't work?"

Mirror back: "So you want [X] for [audience] that achieves [outcome]. The hardest part is [Y]. Right?"

Listen for:

• Hidden constraints — things they assume but haven't stated ("it has to be free" or "I can't code")
• Unstated assumptions — things everyone believes but nobody has questioned
• Real vs stated goal — "I need a website" might mean "I need customers to find me"

Phase 2: Divergent Thinking (3+ approaches)

Generate genuinely different approaches. Not variations on a theme — fundamentally different paths.

See TECHNIQUES.md for lateral thinking methods when standard ideation stalls.

Structure each approach as:

Approach	Description
A: Straightforward	The obvious, proven path. Low risk, well-understood
B: Lateral	An unconventional angle. Higher risk, potentially more innovative
C: Minimal	The simplest possible version. Fastest to test, easiest to validate

For each:

• How it works (2-3 sentences)
• Biggest advantage (one concrete benefit)
• Biggest risk (one specific thing that could go wrong)
• Verdict (when to choose this approach)

Ask: "Which resonates? Or should we explore a hybrid? Or did none of these hit the mark?"

Phase 3: Convergent Refinement

Once an approach is chosen, refine it into something actionable:

1. Break into components — what are the 3-5 pieces of this approach?
2. Apply the essential test — for each component: "What happens if we skip this?" If nothing breaks, skip it
3. Five whys — for each remaining component, ask "why?" five times. If it doesn't survive, cut it
4. Identify the riskiest assumption — what must be true for this to work that you're least sure about?
5. Design a cheap test — how can you validate that assumption with minimum effort? See TECHNIQUES.md for validation patterns

Phase 4: Devil's Advocate

Before finalizing, challenge the idea systematically:

1. "What's the weakest part of this?" — identify and address
2. "How would a critic describe this idea?" — find the harshest fair criticism
3. "What would make this fail in the real world?" — identify failure modes
4. "What are we assuming that might not be true?" — list and assess each assumption
5. "What would [smart person the user respects] say about this?" — role-play an external critic

Present weaknesses proactively. Better to find them now than after committing resources.

Phase 5: Concrete Output

Produce something the user can act on. Format depends on the task:

Task	Output Format
General ideas	1-page concept: problem, solution, audience, differentiator, risks, next step
Naming	10-15 names organized by tone (descriptive, evocative, abstract, playful). Top 3 recommended with reasons
Strategy	Decision matrix: options as rows, criteria as columns, scores with reasoning
Content	Structured outline with 3 alternative hooks
Problem-solving	Root cause analysis + 2-3 solution options with tradeoffs
"Should I do X or Y?"	Comparison table with criteria the user cares about + recommendation

Naming Sub-Workflow

When specifically asked to name something:

1. Understand the entity — what is it? What does it do? Who is it for?
2. Define the vibe — serious/professional, playful/casual, bold/edgy, warm/friendly, technical/precise
3. Generate by category:
   • Descriptive — says what it does (e.g., "QuickBooks", "Dropbox")
   • Evocative — suggests a feeling or concept (e.g., "Nike", "Patagonia")
   • Abstract — meaningless but memorable (e.g., "Google", "Kodak")
   • Playful — fun twist or wordplay (e.g., "Spotify", "Figma")
4. Filter — say it out loud. Is it easy to spell? Is the domain likely available? Is it memorable after one hearing?
5. Recommend top 3 with reasons why each fits the brief

Self-Review Protocol

Before presenting ANY output:

1. Re-read the original problem statement from Phase 1
2. Does this solve THAT problem, or a different one that sounds similar?
3. Is anything the user specifically asked for missing?
4. Are there undefined terms or unexplained jumps in logic?
5. Fix all issues before showing
6. Present remaining weaknesses proactively — "Here's what I'm least confident about..."