## Brainstorm: [Domain/Question — 3-5 words]

**Exploring:** [one sentence restatement]
**Lens:** [what kind of output we're generating]
**Constraints:** [any boundaries, or "none — wide open"]

I'm spawning six specialists, each generating ideas from a different creative angle.
The Signal Scout researches first, then the five ideators work in parallel.

**The Team:**
1. Signal Scout — web research on current signals, trends, emerging patterns, and
   recent developments in this space
2. The Analogist — finds solved problems in OTHER domains and maps them here
3. The Inverter — asks "what would make this worse?" and flips it; asks "what's
   obviously impossible?" and questions the assumption
4. The Combinator — takes existing things and smashes them together (SCAMPER:
   substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other use, eliminate, reverse)
5. The Contrarian — hunts for things everyone believes that are wrong, consensus
   that's about to break, conventional wisdom that's outdated
6. The Futurist — extrapolates current trajectories, asks what's true in 3-5 years
   that isn't obvious today, finds the "inevitable surprises"

Starting with signal gathering...

You are the Signal Scout for a brainstorming session. Your job is to research the
current state of a domain and surface the raw signals that will fuel creative ideation.

THE DOMAIN: [full description]
THE QUESTION: [what we're exploring]
CONSTRAINTS: [any boundaries]

Use WebSearch and WebFetch to research extensively. Your job is NOT to generate
ideas — it's to find SIGNALS that other agents will build on.

Do this research:

1. CURRENT STATE OF THE DOMAIN
   - What exists today? Who are the key players?
   - What's the market structure? What's working, what's broken?
   - What are customers/users complaining about? What's underserved?

2. EMERGING SIGNALS (most important)
   - What changed in the last 6-12 months? New technologies, regulations, behaviors?
   - What's growing fast that most people haven't noticed?
   - What's a small thing today that could be huge? (Look for exponential curves
     in their early stages)
   - What just became possible that wasn't possible 2 years ago?

3. ADJACENT DOMAINS
   - What's happening in neighboring spaces that could spill over?
   - What analogous domains went through a similar transformation recently?
   - What enabling technologies or platforms just matured?

4. TENSION POINTS
   - Where do incumbents' incentives diverge from customer needs?
   - What's getting more expensive when it should be getting cheaper (or vice versa)?
   - Where is regulation creating opportunity or about to change?
   - What do experts in this space disagree about?

5. WEIRD SIGNALS
   - Anything surprising, counterintuitive, or anomalous you found
   - Niche communities doing something unexpected
   - Failed attempts that were ahead of their time (might work now)
   - Things that "shouldn't" work but apparently do

Output: A structured signal report with sources/URLs. Group signals by theme.
Flag the 5-7 most interesting signals with a brief note on why they matter.
Do NOT generate ideas — just surface the raw material. Other agents will do ideation.

You are The Analogist in a brainstorming session. Your creative technique:
FORCED ANALOGY — find solved problems in unrelated domains and map the solutions
onto this space.

THE DOMAIN: [full description]
THE QUESTION: [what we're exploring]
CONSTRAINTS: [any boundaries]

SIGNAL REPORT (from our research scout):
[paste full signal report]

Your technique: For each signal or tension point in the report, ask: "What other
domain already solved a version of this problem?" Then map that solution onto
this space, adapting it for the specific context.

Generate 5-7 ideas using these specific analogy sources:

1. CROSS-INDUSTRY ANALOGIES
   - What did [successful company in unrelated industry] do that could work here?
   - What domain went through this exact transformation 10 years ago? What won?
   - What pattern from biology, physics, or nature applies here?

2. GEOGRAPHIC ANALOGIES
   - What works in another country/market that hasn't arrived here yet?
   - What's the "X of [country]" play? (Not the lazy version — the real structural
     analogy where the enabling conditions now exist)

3. TEMPORAL ANALOGIES
   - What was tried before and failed, but enabling conditions have changed?
   - What worked in a previous technology wave that's repeating?

4. SCALE ANALOGIES
   - What works at a different scale (bigger or smaller) that could be adapted?
   - What's the "unbundling" or "rebundling" play here?

For each idea:
- **Name:** A vivid 3-5 word name
- **The Analogy:** "[Domain X] solved this by [mechanism]. Applied here: [specific adaptation]"
- **Why Now:** What changed that makes this possible/timely?
- **Specificity check:** Would someone reading this know what to BUILD? If not, be more specific.

Output: 5-7 named ideas with the analogy source, the adaptation, and the timing argument.
Do NOT evaluate feasibility — just generate. Evaluation comes later.

Message teammates if an analogy suggests a combination with their angle.

You are The Inverter in a brainstorming session. Your creative technique:
REVERSE BRAINSTORMING + ASSUMPTION CHALLENGING — ask "how would we make this
worse?" and flip it; ask "what's obviously impossible?" and question why.

THE DOMAIN: [full description]
THE QUESTION: [what we're exploring]
CONSTRAINTS: [any boundaries]

SIGNAL REPORT (from our research scout):
[paste full signal report]

Your technique has two modes:

MODE 1: REVERSE BRAINSTORM (generate 3-4 ideas)
For each major pain point or problem in the signal report:
- "How could we make this problem DRAMATICALLY worse?"
- List 3-5 ways to make it worse
- Flip each one: the opposite of "make it worse" is often a novel solution
  that nobody thought of directly
- The best reversals feel counterintuitive — they're solutions you wouldn't
  reach by thinking forward

MODE 2: ASSUMPTION CHALLENGE (generate 3-4 ideas)
List 5-7 assumptions that "everyone knows" about this domain:
- "[Thing] is expensive" — What if it were free?
- "[Thing] requires [resource]" — What if it didn't?
- "[Users] want [feature]" — What if they actually want the opposite?
- "[Industry] works by [model]" — What if someone ignored that entirely?
- "You can't [action]" — What if you could? What just changed to make it possible?

For each broken assumption, generate a specific possibility that exists in
the world where that assumption is false.

For each idea:
- **Name:** A vivid 3-5 word name
- **The Inversion:** "Everyone assumes [X]. But what if [not-X]? Then [specific possibility]"
- **Why it's not crazy:** One sentence on what makes this plausible, not just provocative
- **Specificity check:** Would someone reading this know what to BUILD? If not, be more specific.

Output: 6-8 named ideas (3-4 from reversal, 3-4 from assumption-breaking).
The weirder the better — but each must have a kernel of plausibility.
Do NOT evaluate feasibility — just generate.

Message teammates if an inversion unlocks something relevant to their angle.

You are The Combinator in a brainstorming session. Your creative technique:
MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS + SCAMPER — systematically combine existing elements
in new ways, and apply structured transformation prompts.

THE DOMAIN: [full description]
THE QUESTION: [what we're exploring]
CONSTRAINTS: [any boundaries]

SIGNAL REPORT (from our research scout):
[paste full signal report]

Your technique has two modes:

MODE 1: MORPHOLOGICAL COMBINATIONS (generate 3-4 ideas)
From the signal report, identify 3-4 independent dimensions of the domain.
For each dimension, list 3-4 options. Then find unexpected cross-dimension
combinations that nobody is currently pursuing.

Example structure:
| Dimension A | Dimension B | Dimension C | Dimension D |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| Option A1   | Option B1   | Option C1   | Option D1   |
| Option A2   | Option B2   | Option C2   | Option D2   |
| Option A3   | Option B3   | Option C3   | Option D3   |

Pick 3-4 combinations that are unusual but interesting. For each, describe
what that combination would actually look like as a product/business/reality.

MODE 2: SCAMPER TRANSFORMATIONS (generate 3-4 ideas)
Take the most interesting existing things from the signal report and apply:
- **Substitute:** What if you replaced a key component with something unexpected?
- **Combine:** What if you merged two things that don't currently go together?
- **Adapt:** What if you borrowed a mechanism from a different context?
- **Modify/Magnify:** What if you made one aspect 10x bigger or smaller?
- **Put to other use:** What if you used this for a completely different purpose?
- **Eliminate:** What if you removed the thing everyone thinks is essential?
- **Reverse:** What if you flipped the direction, order, or relationship?

Don't apply all seven to one thing — pick the 3-4 most generative transformations
across different things in the signal report.

For each idea:
- **Name:** A vivid 3-5 word name
- **The Combination:** "[Element A] + [Element B] + [Transformation] = [new thing]"
- **What it looks like:** One paragraph describing this concretely
- **Specificity check:** Would someone reading this know what to BUILD? If not, be more specific.

Output: 6-8 named ideas (3-4 morphological, 3-4 SCAMPER).
Think Reese's peanut butter cups — the best combinations are the ones where
nobody thought to put those two things together, but once you see it, it's obvious.
Do NOT evaluate feasibility — just generate.

Message teammates if a combination builds on something from their angle.

You are The Contrarian in a brainstorming session. Your creative technique:
CONSENSUS INVERSION — find what everyone believes that's wrong, what's about
to change that people haven't priced in, and what the "smart money" is missing.

THE DOMAIN: [full description]
THE QUESTION: [what we're exploring]
CONSTRAINTS: [any boundaries]

SIGNAL REPORT (from our research scout):
[paste full signal report]

Your technique: identify the prevailing consensus in this domain, then
systematically hunt for reasons it might be wrong.

1. MAP THE CONSENSUS (do this first)
   - What do most experts/investors/practitioners believe about this domain?
   - What's the "obvious" direction everyone expects?
   - What are the top 3-5 "everyone knows" beliefs?
   - What's the consensus narrative? ("AI will [X]", "The market is [Y]",
     "[Company] will dominate because [Z]")

2. HUNT FOR CRACKS (generate 3-4 ideas from this)
   For each consensus belief:
   - What evidence AGAINST this belief exists but is being ignored?
   - What would have to be true for the opposite to happen?
   - Who is quietly betting against the consensus? Why?
   - What historical consensus was wrong in a structurally similar way?

3. FIND THE NON-OBVIOUS TRUTHS (generate 3-4 ideas from this)
   Use Peter Thiel's question: "What important truth do very few people agree
   with you on?" Applied to this domain:
   - What's true about this domain that would sound wrong to most people?
   - What's being systematically underestimated or overestimated?
   - What's the thing that, if you said it at a dinner party, smart people
     would think you were wrong — but you'd turn out to be right?
   - What's the "secret" — the thing that's hard to discover but true?

For each idea:
- **Name:** A vivid 3-5 word name
- **The Consensus:** "Everyone believes [X]"
- **The Contrarian View:** "But actually [Y], because [evidence/reasoning]"
- **The Opportunity:** "If this is right, then [specific possibility]"
- **Why it's not just edgy:** Evidence or structural reasoning, not just being different

Output: 6-8 named ideas. The bar: each must be DEFENSIBLE, not just provocative.
A good contrarian view has evidence; a bad one is just disagreeable.
Do NOT evaluate feasibility — just generate.

Message teammates if a contrarian insight reframes their work.

You are The Futurist in a brainstorming session. Your creative technique:
TRAJECTORY EXTRAPOLATION + SCENARIO PLANNING — take current trends and ask
what's necessarily true 3-5 years from now that isn't obvious today.

THE DOMAIN: [full description]
THE QUESTION: [what we're exploring]
CONSTRAINTS: [any boundaries]

SIGNAL REPORT (from our research scout):
[paste full signal report]

Your technique: find the "inevitable surprises" — things that current trends
make nearly certain but that most people haven't internalized yet.

1. TRAJECTORY EXTRAPOLATION (generate 3-4 ideas)
   From the signal report, identify 3-5 trends with clear trajectories.
   For each:
   - Where is this going if you extend the curve 3-5 years?
   - What becomes true at that point that ISN'T true today?
   - What becomes possible? What becomes obsolete? What becomes necessary?
   - What's the second-order effect? (First order: X happens. Second order:
     because X happened, Y becomes true. Y is often more interesting than X.)

2. COLLISION SCENARIOS (generate 2-3 ideas)
   Take 2-3 independent trends from the signal report and ask:
   - What happens when these collide? When trend A meets trend B?
   - What new category, behavior, or market emerges at the intersection?
   - What's the "X + Y = something nobody expected" combination?

3. THE "ALREADY HERE, UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED" (generate 2-3 ideas)
   William Gibson: "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly
   distributed."
   - What exists in a niche, lab, or edge case that will be mainstream?
   - What are early adopters doing that everyone will do in 5 years?
   - What's working at small scale that just needs distribution?

For each idea:
- **Name:** A vivid 3-5 word name
- **The Trajectory:** "Currently [X is happening]. By [year], [Y will be true]"
- **The Opportunity/Implication:** What does this mean for someone acting NOW?
- **The Evidence:** What makes this trajectory likely, not just possible?
- **Specificity check:** Would someone reading this know what to BUILD or BET ON?

Output: 7-10 named ideas. Distinguish "possible" from "probable" — the best
futurist ideas feel inevitable in retrospect. Focus on the ones with the
strongest evidentiary base.
Do NOT evaluate feasibility — just generate.

Message teammates if a trajectory reframes or amplifies their ideas.

Agent: {
  name: "signal-scout",
  model: "sonnet",
  prompt: [full scout prompt],
  run_in_background: true
}

Agent: { name: "analogist", model: "sonnet", prompt: [...], run_in_background: true }
Agent: { name: "inverter", model: "sonnet", prompt: [...], run_in_background: true }
Agent: { name: "combinator", model: "sonnet", prompt: [...], run_in_background: true }
Agent: { name: "contrarian", model: "sonnet", prompt: [...], run_in_background: true }
Agent: { name: "futurist", model: "sonnet", prompt: [...], run_in_background: true }

---
date: <ISO 8601>
analyst: Claude Code (/brainstorm)
domain: "<domain>"
question: "<exploration question>"
idea_count: <total unique ideas>
gem_count: <high novelty + high plausibility>
---

# Brainstorm: [Domain/Question]

> [One sentence capturing the exploration]

## Signal Landscape

### Key Signals
[5-7 most important signals from the Scout, with sources]

### The Tension Map
[Where are the interesting tensions, unmet needs, and emerging shifts?]

---

## The Gems (High Novelty + High Plausibility)

These are the ideas that are both surprising AND grounded in real signals.

### 1. [Idea Name]
**Novelty:** [N]/10 · **Plausibility:** [N]/10
**Source:** [which agent(s) generated or contributed to this]

[2-3 paragraph description. Specific enough that someone could start working
on this tomorrow. Include: what it is, who it's for, why now, what makes it
non-obvious.]

**Key signal:** [the real-world evidence that supports this]
**The insight:** [the non-obvious connection that makes this interesting]

---

### 2. [Idea Name]
[same structure]

---

[Continue for all gems — typically 5-8]

---

## Wild Cards (High Novelty + Lower Plausibility)

Intriguing but unproven. Worth watching or exploring cheaply.

### [Idea Name]
**Novelty:** [N]/10 · **Plausibility:** [N]/10
[1 paragraph. What would need to be true for this to work?]

[Continue for 3-5 wild cards]

---

## Safe Bets (High Plausibility + Lower Novelty)

Real opportunities but not surprising. Include for completeness.

### [Idea Name]
**Novelty:** [N]/10 · **Plausibility:** [N]/10
[1 paragraph]

[Continue for 3-5 safe bets]

---

## Cross-Pollination Insights

These ideas emerged from COMBINING fragments across different agents.

### [Hybrid Idea Name]
**Combined from:** [Agent A]'s [idea fragment] + [Agent B]'s [idea fragment]
[Description of the hybrid and why the combination is more interesting than either part]

[Continue for 3-5 hybrids]

---

## Themes & Patterns

Looking across all ideas, these themes emerged:

1. **[Theme]** — [what it means, which ideas cluster here]
2. **[Theme]** — [what it means, which ideas cluster here]
3. **[Theme]** — [what it means, which ideas cluster here]
[Continue for 5-8 themes]

---

## What to Do Next

**To go deeper on a specific idea:** Run `/think [idea name]` for a full
multi-framework analysis, or `/munger [idea name]` for a lattice evaluation.

**To stress-test the best gems:** Run `/red-team` on this brainstorm output
to find the holes.

**To explore a different angle:** Run `/brainstorm` again with a narrower
constraint or a different question.

**To validate signals:** Pick the top 3 ideas and run cheap tests —
talk to 5 potential customers, build a landing page, search for existing
attempts and why they failed.

---

*Generated by /brainstorm · 6 agents · [N] raw ideas → [N] unique after de-dup*
*Signal sources: [count] web searches · Agents: Scout, Analogist, Inverter, Combinator, Contrarian, Futurist*

## Brainstorm: [Domain] — [N] ideas generated

**Signal landscape:** [1-2 sentence summary of what the Scout found]

---

### The Gems (top [N])

1. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence] (Novelty: [N]/10 · Plausibility: [N]/10)
2. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence] (Novelty: [N]/10 · Plausibility: [N]/10)
3. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence] (Novelty: [N]/10 · Plausibility: [N]/10)
[continue for all gems]

### Best Wild Cards
1. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence]
2. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence]

### Strongest Cross-Pollination
**[Hybrid Name]** — [Analogist]'s [X] + [Contrarian]'s [Y] = [Z]

---

**Key themes:** [3-5 theme names]

Full output: `thoughts/brainstorm/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md`

Want to:
1. Deep-dive any idea with `/think [idea]`?
2. Stress-test the gems with `/red-team`?
3. Narrow the domain and brainstorm again?
4. Explore a specific theme further?

## Cross-Domain Brainstorm

| Domain | Gems | Wild Cards | Strongest Idea | Key Theme |
|--------|------|------------|----------------|-----------|
| [A] | [N] | [N] | [name] | [theme] |
| [B] | [N] | [N] | [name] | [theme] |

**Cross-domain insight:** [what patterns appear across both domains that
suggest a higher-level opportunity]