
Creative Ideation
FreeGenerate unique ideas using established creative methods.
Free · Opens the source repo
What Creative Ideation does
Creative Ideation is a comprehensive library of ideation methods designed to assist users in generating innovative ideas across various domains. This skill is particularly useful for individuals facing open-ended questions or challenges, such as wanting to create something new, feeling stuck, or needing inspiration for a project. By leveraging established creative practices, users can select the appropriate method based on their specific situation and domain, ensuring that the ideas generated are both relevant and actionable.
The skill operates on a structured approach that emphasizes the importance of constraints and direction in the creative process. Users are guided to refuse initial ideas, which are often uninspired, and instead encouraged to explore deeper and more specific concepts. Each method is designed to provide a framework that helps users navigate their creative challenges, ensuring that the output is not only unique but also grounded in reality. This focus on specificity over abstraction means that ideas generated will include concrete mechanisms and situational relevance, making them more viable for real-world application.
Creative Ideation is suitable for a wide range of users, including designers, writers, researchers, and anyone involved in creative work. Whether you are looking to brainstorm for a new product, generate story ideas, or explore artistic concepts, this skill can guide you through the process. By applying various ideation methods, users can unlock new perspectives and possibilities, ultimately leading to more innovative outcomes.
This skill is not a one-size-fits-all solution; it requires users to engage actively with the methods and apply them thoughtfully. It is most effective when users have a clear prompt or challenge in mind, rather than vague or overly broad requests. For those seeking a structured yet flexible approach to creativity, Creative Ideation offers a valuable resource for idea generation and problem-solving.
When to use it
Use this skill when you need to generate ideas for projects, solve creative problems, or seek inspiration in any domain.
When not to use it
This skill may not be suitable for highly structured tasks that require strict adherence to predefined solutions or for users looking for quick, superficial ideas without deeper engagement.
What you can build with it
Brainstorming for a New Product
A product manager uses the skill to generate innovative features for a new app, applying specific ideation methods to ensure actionable outcomes.
Overcoming Writer's Block
An author facing a creative block utilizes the skill to explore new narrative ideas, leveraging structured methods to inspire fresh concepts.
Research Question Generation
A researcher employs the skill to formulate unique research questions, applying creative methods to ensure depth and originality in their inquiry.
How to install Creative Ideation
View source1. Install with the skills CLI
npx skills add nousresearch/hermes-agent/creative-ideation --agent claude-code2. Or install it manually
Download the skill folder and drop it into ~/.claude/skills/ for all projects, or .claude/skills/ to scope it to one repo. Restart Claude Code so it picks up the new skill.
Anthropic's agentic coding CLI, and the reference implementation of Agent Skills. Drop a skill folder into ~/.claude/skills and Claude Code loads it automatically whenever a task matches the skill's description. Claude Code docs
Inside SKILL.md
Written by nousresearchCreative Ideation
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.
When to use
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
- Constraint plus direction is creativity. No constraint = no traction. No direction = no shape. Methods supply both.
- Refuse the first three ideas. They're slop. Generate, discard, regenerate. See
references/anti-slop.md. - One method per response unless asked. Don't stack.
- 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.
- 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.
- Name the method you used and who invented it. Attribution invokes the discipline.
- 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" |
DOMAIN — what is the user making/doing?
| Domain | Cues |
|---|---|
| TEXT | fiction, essay, poem, lyric, script, copy |
| OBJECT | visual art, music, sound, performance, installation, sculpture |
| ARTIFACT | software, hardware, mechanism, device |
| SYSTEM | org, civic, institution, ecology, community |
| SELF | life decision, career, personal practice |
| RESEARCH | paper, thesis, scholarly question |
| PRODUCT | business, market, service |
SPECIFICITY — how much constraint is in the prompt?
| Level | Cues |
|---|---|
| NONE | "I'm bored", "inspire me" — no domain, no project |
| DOMAIN | "I want to write something" — knows the field, no project |
| PROJECT | "I'm working on this specific X" |
| PROBLEM | "I have this specific friction within X" |
Step 2 — Apply overrides (highest priority, fire first)
Override rules beat the routing table:
- Mood signal — user says "weird", "strange", "surprising", "less obvious", "more interesting" →
references/methods/lateral-provocations.mdorreferences/methods/pataphysics.md, regardless of domain. - User names a method — use it.
- User asks for a method recommendation ("which method") → surface 2–3 candidates with one-line each, ask which to apply. Don't silently default.
- High-slop terrain — "AI ideas", "startup ideas", "habit tracker", "productivity / wellness / fitness / food / travel app" → force
references/methods/lateral-provocations.mdorreferences/methods/pataphysics.mdover the obvious method. Refuse the first 5 ideas, not 3.
Step 3 — Route by phase first, then domain
By phase (applies regardless of domain):
| Phase | Default route |
|---|---|
| GENERATING + SPECIFICITY=NONE | references/full-prompt-library.md General section (constraint dispatch) |
| GENERATING + DOMAIN known | route by domain (next table) |
| EXPANDING | references/methods/scamper.md |
| SELECTING | references/methods/premortem-and-inversion.md (or references/methods/compression-progress.md for upside) |
| UNBLOCKING | references/methods/oblique-strategies.md |
| SUBVERTING | references/methods/lateral-provocations.md (fallback references/methods/pataphysics.md) |
| REFINING (text) | references/methods/defamiliarization.md |
| REFINING (other) | references/methods/creative-discipline.md (Tharp's spine) |
| SYNTHESIZING | references/methods/affinity-diagrams.md |
| Volume needed fast | references/methods/volume-generation.md |
By domain (when GENERATING with DOMAIN known):
| Domain | Default route |
|---|---|
| TEXT — formal / poetry | references/methods/oulipo.md |
| TEXT — narrative | references/methods/story-skeletons.md |
| TEXT — has source material to remix | references/methods/chance-and-remix.md |
| OBJECT (music, visual, performance) | references/methods/oblique-strategies.md |
| OBJECT — physical maker / wants a starting constraint | references/full-prompt-library.md Physical / object section |
| ARTIFACT — wants a starting constraint | references/full-prompt-library.md Software / artifact section |
| ARTIFACT — engineering invention with parameter conflict | references/methods/triz-principles.md |
| ARTIFACT — software architecture | references/methods/pattern-languages.md |
| ARTIFACT — has natural-system analog | references/methods/biomimicry.md |
| ARTIFACT — accumulated assumptions to question | references/methods/first-principles.md |
| SYSTEM (civic, org, institutional) | references/methods/leverage-points.md |
| SYSTEM — collective / participatory | references/full-prompt-library.md Social / collective section |
| SELF (life, career, what-to-study) | references/methods/derive-and-mapping.md |
| RESEARCH — picking a question | references/methods/compression-progress.md |
| RESEARCH — attacking a known problem | references/methods/polya.md |
| PRODUCT (business, service) | references/methods/jobs-to-be-done.md |
| 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-donefor the product framing +lateral-provocationsto 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.
Output format
For the constraint-dispatch default path:
## Constraint: [Name] — from [Source]
> [The constraint, one sentence]
### Ideas
1. **[One-line pitch]**
[2-3 sentences — what specifically is made, why it's interesting]
⏱ [weekend/week/month] • 🔧 [stack/medium/materials]
2. ...
3. ...
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.
Every idea set, regardless of method:
- 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.
File map
references/full-prompt-library.md— constraint library, sectioned by domain (General, Software, Physical, Social, Lists). Default path for SPECIFICITY=NONE.references/method-catalog.md— one-line summary + when-to-use per methodreferences/heuristics.md— extended decision tree for edge casesreferences/anti-slop.md— anti-slop rules; apply to every outputreferences/exercises.md— time-boxed exercises (5min / 30min / 1hr / day / week)references/methods/— 22 named methods, one file each, load only the one you're using
Attribution
Constraint-dispatch core adapted from wttdotm.com/prompts.html. Methods drawn from primary sources cited in each method file.
Frequently asked questions about Creative Ideation
Similar skills
Rhino 3D Scripting
Streamline your Rhinoceros 3D scripting tasks.
MVVM Toolkit
Streamline ViewModel development with source generators.
FreeCAD Scripts
Generate Python scripts for FreeCAD automation and modeling.
Azure Architecture Builder
Design and deploy Azure infrastructure using natural language.
Command Development
Streamline your command creation for Claude Code.
Create Cowork Plugin
Easily build and package plugins through guided sessions.
