Creativity Skill
Workflow
1. Ask → "What problem/challenge?"
2. Context → Understand current state BEFORE suggesting
3. Diagnose → Match situation to technique(s)
4. Generate → Walk through technique step-by-step
5. Evaluate → Score and filter ideas
6. Develop → Shape top ideas into actionable concepts
7. Output → Structured ideas + next actions (Thai if user uses Thai)Context questions (step 2):
- "What do you currently do?"
- "What have you tried?"
- "What's working? What's not?"
Anti-pattern: Jumping to solutions without understanding context = generic noise
Situation -> Technique Matrix
| Situation | Techniques | Combination Recipe |
|---|---|---|
| Stuck / No ideas | Random Word, Forced Connections, Oblique Strategies | Random Word -> Forced Connections -> Dot Vote |
| Need breakthrough | First Principles, Challenging Assumptions, Combinatorial Engine | HMW -> Worst Idea -> SCAMPER -> Brainwriting |
| Improve existing | SCAMPER, Reverse Brainstorming, TRIZ-AI | SCAMPER -> Reverse Brainstorm -> Impact/Effort |
| Explore systematically | Morphological Box, Six Thinking Hats, Constraint Injection | Morphological Box -> Constraint Injection -> Clustering |
| Reframe problem | How Might We (HMW), Jobs to be Done | HMW -> JTBD -> First Principles |
| Team ideation | 6-3-5 Brainwriting, Multi-Persona Parallel | Mind Map -> Brainwriting -> Affinity -> Multi-Vote |
| Too many ideas | Impact/Effort Matrix, Idea Clustering, NAF Scoring | Clustering -> NAF Quick Score -> Impact/Effort |
| AI ideas too similar | Divergence Guard, Constraint Injection, Incubation Cycling | Divergence Guard -> Domain Shift -> Incubation |
| Technical/engineering | TRIZ-AI, First Principles | TRIZ -> First Principles -> Assumption Mapping |
| Cross-domain innovation | Combinatorial Engine, Analogical Thinking | Combinatorial Engine -> Analogical -> Constraint |
| Content ideas (blog/video/course) | Content Pillars, Audience Pain Points, Gap Analysis | Pillars -> Pain Points -> SCAMPER -> Validate |
| Business/product ideas | JTBD, Opportunity Canvas, Lean Validation | JTBD -> HMW -> Morphological -> ICE Score |
Technique Quick Reference
Divergent (Generate)
| Technique | One-liner |
|---|---|
| SCAMPER | 7 lenses: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other use, Eliminate, Reverse |
| Random Word | Random noun -> list attributes -> force connections to problem |
| Reverse Brainstorm | "How to make it worse?" -> Invert each idea |
| First Principles | Strip to fundamentals -> Rebuild from scratch |
| Six Hats | 6 perspectives: Facts, Feelings, Risks, Benefits, Ideas, Process |
| HMW | Reframe as "How Might We [verb] for [user] so that [outcome]?" |
| Morphological Box | Parameters x Variations matrix -> Combine systematically |
| Analogies | "How does [other domain] solve this?" |
| Assumptions | List assumptions -> Challenge/invert each |
| Forced Connections | Combine 2 unrelated concepts |
| Jobs to be Done | "When [situation], I want [motivation], so I can [outcome]" |
| Oblique Strategies | Random creative prompts to break deadlocks |
AI-Optimized (Generate + Diversify)
| Technique | One-liner |
|---|---|
| Incubation Cycling | Generate -> Pause -> Fresh restart (no prior context) -> Compare |
| Combinatorial Engine | Abstract -> Retrieve 3 domains -> Generalize -> Combine -> Instantiate |
| Multi-Persona Parallel | Run 4+ personas SIMULTANEOUSLY (not sequentially) |
| Constraint Injection | Add random constraint -> Force novel solutions |
| Divergence Guard | Force opposite -> Domain shift -> Absurdity injection |
| TRIZ-AI | Apply inventive principles (segmentation, nesting, dynamization, etc.) |
| Tree of Thoughts | Explore multiple reasoning branches simultaneously (74% vs CoT 49%) |
Convergent (Evaluate + Refine)
| Technique | One-liner |
|---|---|
| NAF Quick Score | Rate Novelty + Attractiveness + Feasibility (1-10 each) |
| Impact/Effort Matrix | 2x2: Quick Wins, Big Bets, Fill-ins, Avoid |
| ICE Scoring | Impact x Confidence x Ease (1-10 each) |
| Idea Clustering | Group similar -> Name clusters -> Pick best from each |
| Dot Voting | Each person gets 3-5 votes -> Surface favorites |
| Assumption Mapping | Map assumptions on Importance x Certainty -> Test riskiest first |
Idea Evaluation
After generating ideas, ALWAYS offer evaluation. Default to NAF Quick Score.
NAF Quick Score (Default)
| Criterion | Question | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Novelty | How new/surprising is this? | 1-10 |
| Attractiveness | How well does it solve the problem? | 1-10 |
| Feasibility | How realistic to implement? | 1-10 |
Interpretation:
- Total 24-30: Strong candidate -> develop further
- Total 18-23: Promising -> refine or combine
- Total < 18: Weak -> park or discard
- Feasibility 8+: Worth trying (remaining 20% is implementation)
- High N+A but low F: Reframe feasibility barriers as new problems to solve
When to Use Which Evaluation
| Situation | Method |
|---|---|
| Quick screening (5+ ideas) | NAF or Dot Voting |
| Growth experiments | ICE Scoring |
| Data-driven product decisions | RICE Scoring |
| Complex multi-criteria | Weighted Scoring Matrix |
| Visual team alignment | Impact/Effort 2x2 |
Rules:
- NEVER evaluate during divergent phase -- generate first, judge later
- Take a break between generating and evaluating (different mindset)
- Different idea types need different criteria (incremental vs disruptive)
Details: evaluation.md
Content Creator Mode
When ideating for blog posts, videos, courses, or social media:
Step 1: Define Content Pillars (3-5 themes)
Pillar = Core theme that reflects expertise + audience needs
Example: Excel -> [Formulas, Data Viz, Automation, Tips & Tricks, Career]Step 2: Audience-First Ideation
| Source | Questions |
|---|---|
| Pain Points | What frustrates them most? |
| Questions | What do they repeatedly ask? |
| Gaps | What's poorly explained by competitors? |
| Wishes | What do they wish existed? |
| Mistakes | What common errors do they make? |
Step 3: Generate Ideas (use any technique from matrix)
Apply creativity techniques TO the content pillars:
- SCAMPER on existing popular content
- Reverse brainstorm: "How to make the worst tutorial?"
- Analogies: "How would Netflix teach Excel?"
Step 4: Validate Before Creating
[ ] Search demand? (keyword research)
[ ] Real audience pain point? (comments, surveys)
[ ] Can I add unique value? (gap analysis)
[ ] Fits my pillars? (strategy alignment)
[ ] Would I click this? (title/thumbnail test)
[ ] Can be repurposed? (1 piece -> 5+ formats)Repurposing Chain
Blog post -> YouTube video -> Shorts/Reels -> Social posts -> Email -> Course moduleDetails: content-ideation.md
Idea Development Pipeline
Shape raw ideas into actionable concepts:
[Generate] -> [Cluster] -> [Evaluate] -> [Develop] -> [Validate] -> [Execute]Quick Concept Card (for top ideas)
IDEA: [Name]
TAGLINE: [One compelling sentence]
PROBLEM: [What pain it solves]
SOLUTION: [How it works - 2-3 sentences]
TARGET USER: [Who benefits]
KEY INSIGHT: [The "aha" behind this]
EFFORT: [S / M / L]
BIGGEST RISK: [What could go wrong]
QUICKEST TEST: [How to validate cheaply]
NEXT STEP: [One concrete action]Assumption Mapping (for important ideas)
- List assumptions: "What must be true for this to work?"
- Categorize: Desirability / Feasibility / Viability
- Map on 2x2: Importance (high/low) x Certainty (high/low)
- Test high-importance + low-certainty FIRST
Details: idea-pipeline.md
Output Formats
Use these when presenting ideas to the user:
Quick List (5+ ideas)
1. **[Idea Name]** -- [One-line description]
2. **[Idea Name]** -- [One-line description]
...Scored List (after evaluation)
| # | Idea | N | A | F | Total |
|---|------|---|---|---|-------|
| 1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 7 | 24 |Concept Cards (top 3 ideas)
Use the Quick Concept Card format above for each top idea.
Comparison Matrix (deciding between options)
| Criteria | Idea A | Idea B | Idea C |
|-------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Novelty | 4/5 | 3/5 | 5/5 |
| Feasibility | 3/5 | 5/5 | 2/5 |
| Impact | 5/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 |AI Creativity Guidelines
Key Research Insights (2025-2026)
| Finding | Implication |
|---|---|
| Ask AI HOW to think, not WHAT to think | Process prompts > product prompts |
| Human-first ideation preserves diversity | User brainstorms first, THEN AI expands |
| LLMs match average creativity (52nd percentile) | AI is a partner, not a replacement |
| Homogenization effect (g ~ -0.86) | Use Divergence Guard actively |
| "Creative Scar" -- creativity drops after AI withdrawal | Don't outsource all creative thinking |
| Tree of Thoughts: 74% vs CoT 49% | Use ToT for complex creative tasks |
| Multi-LLM collaboration enhances originality | Stack techniques, vary approaches |
| Only 0.28% of LLM ideas reach top 10% human creativity | Push past first outputs aggressively |
AI Role Rules
- Best as: Exploration partner, constraint enforcer, analogy finder, elaborator
- Avoid: Sole ideation source, final decision maker
- Timing: After initial human ideation, not before
- Override rate: Maintain 15-25% human override for optimal outcomes
Anti-Patterns
| Don't | Do Instead |
|---|---|
| "Give me ideas for X" | "Give me 10 ideas for X that would surprise an expert" |
| Accept first outputs | Push past 2-3 rounds; first ideas are "greatest hits" |
| Use AI before thinking | Brainstorm independently first, then expand with AI |
| "Be creative" | Use specific technique (SCAMPER, constraints, personas) |
Details: methodology.md | prompt-templates.md
References
- Step-by-step guides: techniques.md
- AI methodology & research: methodology.md
- Random word bank: random-words.md
- Evaluation frameworks: evaluation.md
- Content creator ideation: content-ideation.md
- Idea development pipeline: idea-pipeline.md
- AI prompt templates: prompt-templates.md
Related Skills
/triz— Systematic innovation methodology (complements brainstorming)/deep-research— Research inspiration and cross-industry solutions/boost-intel— Critical evaluation of generated ideas/design-business-model— Apply creative ideas to business models/problem-solving— Structure the problem before ideating