Ccdawn creative toolbox

Creative Toolbox

Goal

Use current context to generate genuinely new, nameable concepts instead of ordinary suggestion lists.

This skill should reduce creative noise: extract the useful tension, run a small set of high-yield operators, then return concept cards that can be judged, tested, or routed into planning.

Default behavior

• Do not turn every creative request into a long ritual.
• Do not ask whether to enable role collision by default.
• Default Collision Forum is skipped.
• Enable Collision Forum only when the user explicitly asks for it, the creative quality clearly depends on multi-role debate, or BRT routes the request as deep co-creation.
• Use 3-5 operators, not the whole toolbox.
• Every final new concept must have a name, a mechanism, a source collision, and a next experiment.

Minimal flow

1. Identify the creative target: product idea, research direction, naming, story/world concept, strategy, interface, or problem reframing.
2. Extract context materials: concept atoms, hidden tensions, evidence gaps, abnormal signals, unnamed needs, and hard boundaries.
3. Choose 3-5 operators:
   • required: Context Collision
   • required for new concepts/names: Naming Forge
   • at least one distant analogy or cross-domain mechanism
   • at least one assumption breaker, reversal, extreme constraint, or contradiction solver
4. Generate unnamed concept embryos before naming or judging.
5. Name and refine the strongest embryos.
6. Evaluate with 2-4 relevant perspectives; use top-talent role cards only when the task needs strong adversarial judgment.
7. Return 3-7 concept cards plus one recommended next step.

Load references/full-toolbox.md only when the user asks for a full creative run, needs detailed operator rules, wants Collision Forum, or the short flow is not enough.

Load references/role-deck.md only when running Perspective Jury with top-talent role cards.

Operator menu

Operator	Use when	Output
Context Collision	Always	Source materials plus new mechanism
Naming Forge	Naming or new concepts	Main name, alternatives, rejected names
Assumption Breaker	Brief is conventional	Reversed assumptions and opportunities
Cross-Domain Analogy	Need fresh structure	Borrowed mechanism, not surface style
Extreme Constraint	Need sharper ideas	Designs that survive a hard limit
Concept Fusion	Two ideas can combine	Third concept with a new mechanism
Mutation	Existing idea is close	Variants with changed user, scale, medium, or interaction
Contradiction Solver	Goals conflict	Layered or staged resolution
Novelty Filter	Output feels generic	Removed obvious ideas and survivors
Perspective Jury	Need self-review	Challenge, evidence, verdict
Collision Forum	User wants debate	Short multi-role exchange and second-generation ideas

Concept quality gate

A concept is eligible only when it:

• comes from at least two current context materials;
• changes a mechanism or relationship, not just wording;
• names something the user could not previously discuss clearly;
• can generate a follow-up function, experiment, story beat, metric, or decision;
• survives a usefulness check and at least one skeptical challenge.

Downgrade it to a normal idea if it is only an existing feature with a prettier name.

Compact output

创意调用:
- Target: ...
- Operators: ...
- Collision Forum: skipped / enabled, because ...
- Context Materials: ...

概念胚胎:
| Embryo | Source Collision | New Mechanism | Why It Is Not Generic |

新概念卡:
| Name | Definition | Source Collision | Mechanism | Newness | Next Experiment |

筛选:
- Safe:
- Sharp:
- Strange:
- Recommended:

Review:
- Challenge:
- Evidence:
- Verdict:

Route Out:
- <从 BRT interface 的 Route Out 选择一个>

Use the full output contract in references/full-toolbox.md only for deep creative sessions.

BRT interface

• Context Boundary: user brief, current conversation context, extracted concept materials, and any explicit domain constraints.
• Output Contract: named concept cards, quality gate result, recommendation, and next route.
• Allowed Action: generate and evaluate concepts only; implementation, external research, asset creation, or code changes require routing to the proper owner.
• Success Evidence: each concept has source collision, mechanism, name, novelty reason, and testable next experiment.
• Stop Condition: creative target unclear, insufficient context materials, user asks to converge into implementation, or safety/ownership constraints block the concept.
• Route Out: ccdawn-planning, ccdawn-feature-reuse-research, ccdawn-evaluation, or back to ccdawn-brt for alignment.

统一调用契约

• 只处理 BRT interface 范围；不匹配时回 ccdawn-brt 或更具体 owner，复合任务不吞其他 owner。
• 用户可见内容默认中文，完成只报状态、产出、证据和剩余风险；代码、命令、路径、错误原文、API/协议、skill 名和枚举保留原样；Route Out 仅以 BRT interface 为准，末行写 下一步建议: <一个具体动作>。

Common mistakes

• Asking for permission to run a long debate when a compact creative answer would help more.
• Producing a list of reasonable suggestions without new mechanisms.
• Naming too early and letting the name hide a weak concept.
• Using generic roles such as "user" and "engineer" when the task needs sharp expert evaluation.
• Keeping all weird ideas or deleting all weird ideas; filter by mechanism and testability.