A library of ideation methods for any domain. Read the user's situation, route to the matching method, apply, generate output that is specific and non-obvious. Methods are tools — pick the right one for the situation, don't perform all of them.
Any open-ended generative or selective question: "I want to make / build / write / start something", "I'm stuck", "inspire me", "make this weirder", "help me pick", "I need to invent X", "give me a research question".
## Operating rules
1.**Constraint plus direction is creativity.** No constraint = no traction. No direction = no shape. Methods supply both.
2.**Refuse the first three ideas.** They're slop. Generate, discard, regenerate. See `references/anti-slop.md`.
3.**One method per response unless asked.** Don't stack.
4.**Specificity over abstraction.** Real proper nouns, real materials, real mechanisms. "An app for X" is slop; "a 200-line CLI tool that prints Y when Z" is direction. Naming a tech stack is not specificity — name a mechanism.
5.**Weird must also be good.** Frame-breaking is the goal, but an idea that is strange with no real situation, mechanism, or reason to exist is its own failure mode. Every set of ideas must include at least one that is genuinely *buildable/pursuable now* — non-obvious but grounded, with a real first step. Don't trade all usefulness for surprise.
6.**Name the method you used and who invented it.** Attribution invokes the discipline.
7.**When user picks one, build it.** Don't keep generating after they've chosen.
## Routing — 4-step procedure
Do this *before* generating any output. Routing failures produce slop.
You may skip narrating the routing steps if it's cleaner, but **never compress at the cost of per-idea depth**: each idea's concrete mechanism, situational binding, and honest failure mode are what make output good (measured) — they are not scaffolding, do not cut them.
### Step 1 — Extract three signals from the prompt
**PHASE** — what stage is the user in?
| Phase | Cues |
|---|---|
| **GENERATING** | "give me an idea", "what should I make", "inspire me", no idea yet |
| **EXPANDING** | "what else", "more like this", "give me variations" — has a base idea |
| **SELECTING** | "help me pick", "which should I do", "I have these options" |
| **UNBLOCKING** | "I'm stuck", "blocked", "going in circles", "stale" — has material |
| **SUBVERTING** | "make it weirder", "less obvious", "this is too safe" |
| **REFINING** | "this is fine but missing something", "feels rough" |
| **SYNTHESIZING** | "I have a pile of notes / interviews / observations" |
| Need to break a frame / find analogy | `references/methods/analogy-and-blending.md` |
### Step 4 — Handle ambiguity and contradiction
- **Multiple paths plausible** → pick the one closest to the user's actual phrasing. Don't pick the most interesting method to seem sophisticated.
- **Genuinely ambiguous** → ask ONE clarifying question, don't silently guess. Examples: *"Are you generating ideas or picking between ones you have?"* / *"Is this for fiction, essay, or something else?"*
- **Signals contradict** (e.g., "weird startup ideas" → product domain + weird mood) → **stack two methods explicitly**. State what you're doing: *"Using `jobs-to-be-done` for the product framing + `lateral-provocations` to break the obvious shape."*
- **No match** → constraint dispatch (`references/full-prompt-library.md`) is the safe fallback.
- **Same question asked again** → switch methods. Variation in method = variation in idea distribution.
### Anti-default check (run before generating)
- About to write "Here are 5 ideas:" or a bare numbered list? → STOP. Pick a method first.
- About to default to generic LLM-mode brainstorming? → STOP. Pick a path above.
- Output looks like what an unrouted LLM would produce? → routing failed, redo.
The default LLM mode is exactly what this skill exists to displace. If you generate without routing, you've defeated the skill.
For deeper edge cases (mood signals, stacking, anti-patterns) see `references/heuristics.md`.
For other methods, use the format the method specifies (TRIZ produces a contradiction analysis; OuLiPo produces constrained text; Oblique Strategies produces a single applied card → next move). Don't force every method into the constraint template.
- Name the method used. On slop terrain, name the obvious ideas you refused.
- Give each idea its concrete mechanism and its honest failure mode / tradeoff / who-it's-for. This depth is what makes ideas land — measured, not decorative.
- Mark at least one idea as the **grounded** one — buildable/pursuable now, non-obvious but with a real first step. The others can run further toward the strange; this one has to be genuinely doable. Don't let the whole set be weird-but-impractical.
Constraint-dispatch core adapted from [wttdotm.com/prompts.html](https://wttdotm.com/prompts.html). Methods drawn from primary sources cited in each method file.
