/prospect — The Adaptive Exploration Pipeline

1. Before research — start with brainstorming, not with a fixed idea
2. After red-team — if the idea is DEAD, brainstorm adjacent possibilities
3. During analysis — if a sub-analyst discovers the real opportunity is elsewhere, surface it as a pivot candidate

Pipeline Overview

DOMAIN
  │
  ▼
BRAINSTORM (diverge) ──→ pick top 1-2 gems
  │
  ▼
RESEARCH (ground in reality)
  │
  ▼
THINK (converge) ──→ intelligence brief
  │
  ▼
RED-TEAM (stress-test)
  │
  ├──→ SURVIVES ──→ FINAL STAKE (done)
  │
  ├──→ WOUNDED ──→ iterate (research gaps → re-think → re-red-team)
  │
  └──→ DEAD ──→ PIVOT DECISION:
                  │
                  ├──→ Adjacent brainstorm (narrow: what's NEAR the dead idea?)
                  │     │
                  │     ▼
                  │   Pick new vein → RESEARCH → THINK → RED-TEAM → ...
                  │
                  └──→ Return to original brainstorm gems (try next best)
                        │
                        ▼
                      RESEARCH → THINK → RED-TEAM → ...

• An idea SURVIVES red-team → done, produce final report
• An idea is WOUNDED with stable conviction after 2 rounds → done, report with caveats
• Max 3 major pivots (brainstorm cycles) to bound cost
• Max 2 think/red-team iterations per idea
• User can interrupt and redirect at any decision point

Core Principles

1. Diverge first, always. Never skip brainstorming. Even if the user has an idea, brainstorm the adjacent space first — the user's idea might be the 5th best opportunity, not the 1st.
2. Kill fast, pivot fast. When red-team kills an idea, don't mourn — pivot. The death often reveals where the REAL opportunity is. The red-team's kill shots are brainstorming fuel.
3. Adjacent brainstorming > restart from zero. When pivoting, don't brainstorm the whole domain again. Brainstorm the ADJACENT space — what's near the dead idea that avoids its fatal flaw? This is where the best opportunities hide.
4. The journey IS the deliverable. The final report includes the full prospecting trail: what was explored, what was assayed, what died and why, what pivots were taken, and what survived. The dead veins are as informative as the surviving one.
5. User is co-prospector. At every pivot point, present the options and let the user weigh in. Don't auto-pilot the entire exploration. The user's intuition about which direction to explore is valuable signal.

Invocation

$ARGUMENTS

1. If arguments contain a clear domain, trend, or space to explore → proceed to Phase 1
2. If arguments contain a specific idea → proceed, but STILL run brainstorming first (the idea becomes one of the candidates, not the only candidate)
3. If arguments are empty or too vague, ask ONE question via AskUserQuestion: "What space do you want to prospect? Give me a domain, trend, or question — I'll explore the landscape, find the best opportunities, and stress-test them."
4. Do NOT ask more than one round of questions.

Phase 1 — Survey the Landscape (Brainstorm)

1. Read the brainstorm skill from

   .claude/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md

2. Run the full 6-agent brainstorm (Signal Scout first, then 5 ideators in parallel)
3. Cross-pollinate, rank on novelty × plausibility
4. Write the brainstorm output to

   thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<domain-slug>-brainstorm-r1.md

## Prospect: Survey Complete — [Domain]

I explored [domain] with 6 specialist agents and generated [N] unique ideas.

### Top Gems (highest novelty × plausibility)

1. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence] (N: [X]/10 · P: [Y]/10)
   [2-3 sentences on why this is interesting]

2. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence] (N: [X]/10 · P: [Y]/10)
   [2-3 sentences]

3. **[Idea Name]** — [one sentence] (N: [X]/10 · P: [Y]/10)
   [2-3 sentences]

[Show top 5 gems]

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

---

Which vein should I drill into first? I'll run deep research, multi-framework
analysis, and adversarial stress-testing on your pick.

Options:
- Pick a number (1-5) to drill into a gem
- Pick a wild card to explore something riskier
- Suggest a direction I didn't find
- "Top 2" — I'll analyze the top 2 in parallel

Phase 2 — Stake a Claim (Research + Think)

Step 2.1 — Deep Research

• Direct competitors and existing solutions
• Market size and pricing evidence
• Technology readiness and recent developments
• Regulatory/structural dynamics

thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<domain-slug>-research-v[N].md

Step 2.2 — Intelligence Brief (/think)

1. Read

   .claude/skills/think/SKILL.md

2. Triage: select 4-7 frameworks, include research as context for all agents
3. Spawn agents, collect results, surface contradictions, synthesize
4. Write to

   thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<domain-slug>-think-v[N].md

ADJACENT OPPORTUNITY DETECTION:
As you analyze this idea, watch for signs that the REAL opportunity might be
adjacent to or different from the stated idea. If your framework suggests
a better version, a different market, a different approach, or a pivoted thesis
that's stronger than the original — flag it explicitly:

"ADJACENT SIGNAL: [description of the adjacent opportunity and why it might
be stronger than the current idea]"

This is NOT the same as the normal CROSS-FRAMEWORK NOTE. Adjacent signals
suggest the idea itself should change, not just that another framework should
know about a finding.

Phase 3 — Assay the Ore (Red-Team)

1. Read

   .claude/skills/red-team/SKILL.md

2. Extract target from the think brief
3. Select 5-7 prosecutors (always include Feynman, Kahneman, Tetlock, Munger)
4. Spawn prosecutors with the full think brief AND research
5. Compile kill sheet
6. Write to

   thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<domain-slug>-redteam-v[N].md

Phase 4 — The Pivot Decision (The Key Innovation)

Decision Matrix

When DEAD → Pivot

• The specific kill shots (what killed it?)
• What would need to be different for a similar idea to survive?
• What adjacent space avoids the fatal flaw?
• Did any adjacent signals from Phase 2.2 point toward a surviving variant?

## Prospect: Vein [N] Assayed — DEAD

**[Idea Name]** did not survive red-team.

**What killed it:**
1. [Kill shot 1] — [one sentence]
2. [Kill shot 2] — [one sentence]

**What the death reveals:**
[1-2 sentences on what this tells us about the real opportunity]

---

### Pivot Options

**A. Adjacent brainstorm** — Explore what's NEAR this idea but avoids its fatal flaw.
   I'll run a focused brainstorm on: "[description of adjacent space]"
   [Why this is promising: the death revealed X, and adjacent space Y avoids X]

**B. Next gem from original brainstorm** — Try **[Next Idea Name]** (N:[X]/10 · P:[Y]/10)
   [Why this one: it doesn't share the same fatal flaw because...]

**C. Your call** — Redirect me to a specific idea or direction.

**D. Stop here** — The prospecting trail so far is informative. I'll produce
   a final report with what we've learned.

Which direction?

• The Analogist (what solved the adjacent problem elsewhere?)
• The Combinator (what if we combine the dead idea's strengths with a different approach?)
• The Contrarian (what assumption from the dead idea was wrong, and what's true instead?)

thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<domain-slug>-brainstorm-pivot-[N].md

When WOUNDED → Iterate

1. Gap research on red-team's specific claims (2-3 targeted research agents)
2. Re-think with enriched context (research + red-team + gap research)
3. Re-red-team
4. If still WOUNDED after 2 iterations, proceed to Final Report with caveats

When SURVIVES → Done

Phase 5 — The Prospecting Report

thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<domain-slug>-report.html

Report Structure

1. Hero Section
   • Eyebrow: "PROSPECTING REPORT"
   • Title: The domain/question explored
   • Subtitle: The surviving idea (if any) or "Exploration complete — [N] veins assayed"
   • Badge row: gems found | veins assayed | pivots taken | final verdict
2. The Landscape (from Phase 1 brainstorm)
   • Signal summary (what the Scout found)
   • Idea map: all gems, wild cards, themes
   • What the brainstorm revealed about the space
3. The Prospecting Trail (the journey) For each vein explored:
   • Vein [N]: [Idea Name]
     • Why we picked it
     • Research highlights
     • Think brief summary (core argument, key insight, conviction)
     • Red-team verdict (kill shots, wounds)
     • Outcome: SURVIVES / WOUNDED / DEAD
     • If dead: what the death revealed, what pivot it triggered
   Show the trail as a visual sequence:

   Brainstorm → [Idea A] ✗ DEAD (killed by: [X]) → Adjacent brainstorm →
   [Idea B] ⚠ WOUNDED → Iterate → [Idea B v2] ✓ SURVIVES

4. The Stake (if an idea survived)
   • Full intelligence brief summary
   • Stress-test results
   • Core argument
   • Key insight
   • How to win / how to lose
   • What to validate first
   • Recommended action with conviction
5. The Dead Veins (what didn't work and why)
   • Each dead idea with its kill shots
   • What we learned from each death — these are often the most valuable insights
   • Pattern across deaths: what keeps killing ideas in this space?
6. The Unexplored (from original brainstorm)
   • Gems we didn't get to assay
   • Wild cards worth revisiting
   • Adjacent brainstorm ideas that weren't picked
7. Meta-Insights
   • What the prospecting trail reveals about this domain
   • Themes across the brainstorm, deaths, and survivors
   • What kind of idea survives in this space (the "shape" of a winner)
   • Recommendations for further exploration

HTML Design System

/* Prospect-specific */
--prospect-gradient: linear-gradient(135deg, #7c6ff7, #22d3ee, #4ade80);

/* Trail visualization */
.trail-node { /* circles connected by lines */ }
.trail-node.dead { border-color: var(--red); }
.trail-node.wounded { border-color: var(--amber); }
.trail-node.survives { border-color: var(--green); }
.trail-pivot { /* dashed line showing the pivot */ }

Final Presentation

## Prospect Complete: [Domain]

**Landscape:** [N] ideas brainstormed across [domain]
**Veins assayed:** [N] ideas through full think + red-team
**Pivots:** [N] divergent pivots taken
**Final stake:** [Idea Name] — [SURVIVES / WOUNDED / DEAD]

---

**The Trail:**
[visual trail: Brainstorm → Idea A ✗ → Pivot → Idea B ✓]

**Surviving Idea:** [Idea Name]
**Core Argument:** [3-5 sentences]
**Conviction:** [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH]

**What We Learned from the Dead Veins:**
- [Idea A] died because [X] — this tells us [Y]
- [Idea B] was wounded by [X] — iterated and survived

---

**Files generated:**
- Brainstorm: `thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-brainstorm-r1.md`
- [Research, think, red-team files for each vein]
- [Pivot brainstorm files if any]
- **Report: `thoughts/prospect/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-report.html`**

Open the HTML report for the full prospecting map.

Want to:
1. Go deeper on the surviving idea with `/deepthink [idea]`?
2. Explore a dead vein's adjacent space further?
3. Run `/brainstorm` on a theme that emerged?
4. Apply a specific thinker framework (`/munger`, `/thiel`, etc.)?

Edge Cases

User provides a specific idea, not a domain

You asked about [specific idea]. I brainstormed the broader [domain] space and
found [N] ideas. Your idea appears as Gem #[X]. But the brainstorm also surfaced:

- **[Gem #1]** which scores higher because [reason]
- **[Gem #2]** which is adjacent and avoids [risk your idea has]

Which should I drill into? Your original idea, one of these, or multiple?

All ideas die

## Prospect: Three Veins Dead

All three ideas I've analyzed in [domain] were killed by red-team.

**The Pattern:** Looking across the deaths, they keep dying because [common theme].
This suggests that in this space, a winning idea needs to [characteristic that
avoids the common kill pattern].

**Options:**
A. One more targeted brainstorm focused on ideas that have [the surviving characteristic]
B. Pivot to an entirely different domain
C. Stop here — the report on WHY ideas die in this space is itself valuable intelligence

User wants to skip brainstorming

I hear you — but /prospect's value comes from exploring BEFORE committing.
If you already know the idea and just want to analyze it, /deepthink or /think
are better tools. /prospect is for when the best idea hasn't been found yet.

That said, I can:
A. Run a quick 3-agent brainstorm (5 min) to see if there's something better nearby
B. Skip brainstorming and go straight to research + think + red-team (this is /deepthink)
C. Run the full brainstorm (10 min) as designed

Quality Standards

• The pivot is the product. A /prospect run that goes Brainstorm → Idea A → SURVIVES on the first try is fine but not where /prospect shines. It shines when Idea A dies, the death reveals something, the pivot finds Idea B, and Idea B is BETTER than what the user walked in with. The pivot decision and adjacent brainstorming are the core innovation — they must be done well.
• Dead veins are valuable. The report should treat dead ideas with as much analytical rigor as surviving ones. "This died because of X" is high-value intelligence about the domain. The pattern across deaths is often more revealing than any single survival.
• User involvement at pivot points. Don't auto-pilot through pivots. Present options, explain the reasoning, and let the user choose. Their domain knowledge is additive to the analysis.
• Adjacent brainstorms are FOCUSED. When pivoting, don't re-run the full 6-agent brainstorm. Run 3 focused agents with the full context of what was learned. This produces better ideas than starting fresh because it builds on the intelligence gathered so far.
• The trail is the story. The HTML report should tell the story of the exploration. A reader should be able to follow the trail from "we started exploring X" through "we tried Y and it died because Z" to "we pivoted to W and it survived because V." This narrative is what makes /prospect's output different from just running the tools separately.

Cost & Timing Notes

• Minimum cost: 1 brainstorm (6 agents) + 1 research (3-4 agents) + 1 think (4-7 agents) + 1 red-team (5-7 agents) = ~20 agents if the first idea survives
• Typical cost with 1 pivot: ~35 agents across 2 brainstorms + 2 full analyses
• Maximum cost (3 pivots, 2 iterations): ~55 agents — this is the most expensive skill in the toolkit, but it's doing the most exploratory work
• Model selection: Sonnet for all sub-agents, Opus for synthesis and pivot decisions
• Expected timing: 20-45 minutes depending on pivots
• Pair with: Run

  /prospect

  to find the idea →

  /deepthink

  to go even deeper →

  /munger

  or

  /thiel

  for specialized framework analysis