Creative Ideation: A Practical Guide to Structured Idea Generation

This guide covers the Creative Ideation skill for Hermes Agent, a library of named methods from creative practice for generating, expanding, selecting, unblocking, subverting, refining, and synthesizing ideas. It is for anyone facing an 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", or "give me a research question". The skill routes user prompts through a four-step procedure to a matching method, then applies that method to produce specific, non-obvious output.

What it does

The Creative Ideation skill replaces the default LLM brainstorming mode with a disciplined, method-driven process. Instead of asking a language model to "give me some ideas" and getting generic lists, you feed the user's prompt through a routing system that extracts three signals (phase, domain, specificity), applies overrides for mood or named methods, selects a method from a library of 22, and generates output that includes concrete mechanisms, honest failure modes, and at least one grounded, buildable idea. The skill enforces rules: refuse the first three ideas (they're slop), name the method used, and never stack methods unless signals contradict.

Before you start

• Prerequisites: Hermes Agent installed and running. The Creative Ideation skill is optional and must be installed on demand.
• Installation: Use the Hermes Agent skill management system to install the optional-skills/creative/creative-ideation skill.
• Platforms: Linux, macOS, Windows.
• License: MIT.
• Author: SHL0MS.
• File map: The skill includes a references/ directory with:
  • 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 method
  • references/heuristics.md, extended decision tree for edge cases
  • references/anti-slop.md, anti-slop rules; apply to every output
  • references/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

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"

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.md or references/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.md or references/methods/pataphysics.md over 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/use-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-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.

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.

When not to use it

This skill is designed for open-ended, generative or selective questions. It is not for closed-ended questions (e.g., "What is the capital of France?"), factual lookup, or tasks that require a single correct answer. If the user already has a clear, specific plan and just needs execution, this skill adds unnecessary overhead.

Limits and gotchas

• The skill is only as good as the routing. If you skip the four-step procedure or compress it, output degrades to generic LLM slop.
• The anti-slop rules (refuse first three ideas, specificity over abstraction) are enforced by the skill's logic, but the user must still provide enough context for the routing to work. A prompt like "inspire me" with no domain will land in the constraint dispatch default path, which may feel generic.
• The skill does not handle multiple methods in one response unless signals contradict. If the user asks for "ideas for a novel and a painting", the routing will pick one domain and method; the other domain would need a separate request.
• The grounded idea requirement (at least one buildable/pursuable now) is a rule, not a guarantee. The skill's output depends on the method and the user's context.

What pairs with this

• The Creative Ideation skill is part of the Hermes Agent optional skills suite. It pairs naturally with other creative skills (e.g., Creative Writing, Visual Art) for domain-specific generation.
• The references/ directory includes exercises (references/exercises.md) for time-boxed practice (5min / 30min / 1hr / day / week).
• Attribution: Constraint-dispatch core adapted from wttdotm.com/prompts.html. Methods drawn from primary sources cited in each method file.