# Hodios paste pack: Brainstorming

Everything in Brainstorming from Hodios, the open prompt library by Hermes IDE: 3 entries, catalog 2026.1002.2.

Every entry is dedicated to the public domain under CC0 1.0. Copy, change and share them freely, no attribution needed.

Browse and search the library at https://hermes-ide.com/prompts

## How to use

Find an entry below and copy the text inside its block into ChatGPT, claude.ai or any chat. Replace each [PLACEHOLDER] with your own material. Personas, rules and styles work best as custom instructions or project instructions.

## Contents

- Brainstorming
  - [Brainstorm ideas](#brainstorm-ideas) (prompt)
  - [Facilitate a group brainstorm](#facilitate-group-brainstorm) (prompt)
  - [Run six thinking hats](#run-six-thinking-hats) (prompt)

---

<a id="brainstorm-ideas"></a>

## Brainstorm ideas

`brainstorm-ideas` · prompt · Brainstorming · https://hermes-ide.com/prompts/brainstorm-ideas

Generates many diverse ideas with structured techniques such as SCAMPER, constraint shifts and analogies, then clusters them and shortlists the strongest. Use when obvious answers fall short.

````markdown
<context>
You run brainstorms for teams that are stuck on the obvious answers. Plain requests for ideas tend to produce ten variations of the same three ideas. Structured techniques force the search into different places, and separating generation from judgement keeps the odd but useful ideas alive long enough to be considered.

<challenge>
[CHALLENGE]
</challenge>
Target: about 30 ideas.
</context>

<task>
1. Frame. Restate the challenge as two or three "How might we..." questions at different levels (narrower, as given, broader). If the challenge is too vague to generate useful ideas (no subject, no audience, no goal), ask up to three questions and stop.
2. Generate about 30 ideas in rounds, each round using a different technique:
   - SCAMPER: substitute, combine, adapt, modify or magnify, put to another use, eliminate, reverse.
   - Constraint shifts: what if the budget were zero, or ten times larger; what if it had to work in a day; what if one key resource disappeared.
   - Analogies: how a different field solves a similar problem (a hospital, a game, a restaurant, nature), then transfer the mechanism.
   - Reversal: list ways to make the problem worse, then invert them.
   - Extreme users: design for a beginner, an expert, someone in a hurry, someone who cannot use the usual channel.
   Spread ideas roughly evenly across techniques. Mark about one in five as a deliberately wild idea.
3. Do not judge during generation. Then cluster the ideas into four to seven themes and name each theme by the mechanism it relies on.
4. Evaluate. Score the most promising ideas on impact, effort and fit with the constraints. Shortlist three to five, including at least one that is less obvious.
5. For each shortlisted idea, propose the cheapest test that would show within two weeks whether it works.
</task>

<constraints>
- Each idea is one concrete sentence someone could act on ("A five-minute Saturday drop-in for parents at the library's front desk"), not a category ("better outreach").
- No near-duplicates. If two ideas share a mechanism, merge them.
- Ideas may break the constraints during generation; mark those with (breaks constraint) and keep them out of the shortlist unless you explain how to adapt them.
- Make the ideas specific to this challenge and audience; avoid generic advice that would fit any problem.
- If the count is very large, keep each idea to one line; if it is small (under 10), still use at least three techniques.
</constraints>

<output_format>
## Framing
The "How might we" questions as bullets.
## Ideas
Grouped by technique with a short heading for each. Numbered continuously across groups. Mark wild ideas with (wild).
## Clusters
Theme name, the mechanism in one sentence, and the idea numbers it contains.
## Shortlist
Table: Idea | Why it could work | Impact (H/M/L) | Effort (H/M/L) | Main risk.
## First test
One bullet per shortlisted idea: the test, what to measure, and what result would mean "go".
</output_format>
````

---

<a id="facilitate-group-brainstorm"></a>

## Facilitate a group brainstorm

`facilitate-group-brainstorm` · prompt · Brainstorming · https://hermes-ide.com/prompts/facilitate-group-brainstorm

Plans and scripts a group brainstorm - framed challenge, warm-up, silent ideation, building, clustering, voting and next steps - timed to the group and slot. For teams generating ideas together.

````markdown
<context>
Open-floor group brainstorming produces fewer and less varied ideas than people working alone first, because of anchoring on early ideas, waiting for a turn, and fear of judgement. Sessions that work separate generating from judging, start with silent individual ideation (brainwriting), then build on each other's ideas, and converge with a transparent method. You plan a session that a non-specialist can run from your script.

<challenge>
[CHALLENGE]
</challenge>
Group size: 6 people. Duration: 60 minutes.
</context>

<task>
1. Frame the challenge as one to three "How might we …?" questions that are neither too broad ("improve the company") nor too narrow (a disguised single solution). Note the constraints and who decides after the session. If the challenge is too vague to frame or no one owns the decision, say what to clarify first and still give a draft framing.
2. Plan the session to fit exactly 60 minutes, with about 10 percent buffer. Adapt to 6 people: for more than 8, split into tables of 4 to 6 with a reporter each; for under 4, use more individual rounds. If the duration is under 45 minutes, use the compressed format: a two-minute warm-up or none, the stretch prompt folded into the building round, clustering done by the facilitator while people read the wall, and voting kept. Over 90 minutes, add a break. Include:
   - opening: purpose, the question, the ground rules (quantity over quality, no judging yet, build on others, one idea per note), and the decision owner;
   - a short warm-up that loosens thinking and relates to the challenge;
   - silent ideation: individual writing, one idea per sticky note or card;
   - building: a brainwriting pass (6-3-5 style or round-robin of notes) where people extend others' ideas;
   - a stretch round with a prompt that forces new territory (an extreme constraint, the opposite, how another industry would solve it);
   - clustering: grouping into themes and naming them;
   - convergence: dot voting with a clear criterion (for example impact and feasibility), and a quick check for a bold idea that deserves rescue;
   - close: top ideas, owners for next steps, and how people will hear what happens.
3. Write the facilitator's script for each block: what to say word for word for instructions, timing, and what to do if energy drops, one person dominates, or ideas stay safe.
4. List materials for in-person and remote (whiteboard tool) versions.
5. After the session: how to write up the output within 24 hours and turn the top ideas into tests.
</task>

<constraints>
- Times must add up to 60 minutes; show the running clock.
- If 6 is outside 3 to 30 or 60 is outside 20 to 240, use the nearest bound and say so.
- No icebreakers that embarrass people or take more than five minutes.
- Do not generate the group's ideas for them in the plan; offer at most three example ideas to explain an instruction.
</constraints>

<output_format>
## Framed challenge
The How might we questions, constraints and decision owner.
## Session at a glance
A table: Clock | Block | Minutes | Format | Output.
## Facilitation script
One subsection per block with the words to say in quotation marks and tips for problems.
## Materials
Two short lists: in person and remote.
## After the session
Numbered steps.
</output_format>
````

---

<a id="run-six-thinking-hats"></a>

## Run six thinking hats

`run-six-thinking-hats` · prompt · Brainstorming · https://hermes-ide.com/prompts/run-six-thinking-hats

Explores a problem through the six thinking hats in a disciplined order - facts, feelings, risks, benefits, alternatives and process - and ends with a balanced view and next steps.

````markdown
<context>
The six thinking hats method makes a group (or one person) look at a problem in one mode at a time instead of arguing across modes. Its value comes from discipline: facts stay separate from feelings, and criticism does not crowd out benefits and new options. A plain "pros and cons" collapses all of this into two lists and usually lets the loudest mode win.

<problem>
[PROBLEM]
</problem>
</context>

<task>
1. Blue hat (framing): state the question being decided in one sentence, what a good outcome looks like, and the assumptions you are making about missing context. If the problem is too thin to work on, ask up to three questions and stop.
2. White hat (facts): what is known from the text, what is unknown, and what information would most change the decision. Write unknowns as questions; do not fill them with guesses.
3. Red hat (feelings): the gut reactions and emotions likely to be in play for each person or group involved, stated without justification, as the method intends. Mark these as likely reactions, not facts.
4. Black hat (risks): what could go wrong, why, and how likely and how serious it is. Include the risk of doing nothing.
5. Yellow hat (benefits): what could go right and why, with the conditions needed for the best case.
6. Green hat (alternatives): at least four options, including ones that change the framing, combine options, or test before committing.
7. Blue hat (synthesis): weigh what the hats showed, give a balanced view and a recommendation if one is warranted, and say what would change it.
8. Next steps: three to six concrete actions with an owner (a role, not an invented name) and a timing.
</task>

<constraints>
- Keep each hat in its own mode. No rebuttals inside Black or Yellow, and no reasons inside Red.
- Treat Black and Yellow with equal effort: similar depth and similar numbers of points.
- Do not invent facts, numbers or quotes. Everything in White comes from the problem text or is written as an open question.
- Be specific to this situation; drop any point that would fit every problem.
- If the problem is a simple factual question rather than a decision or problem with trade-offs, answer it briefly and say the method is not needed.
</constraints>

<output_format>
## Blue hat - framing
Three lines: The question, A good outcome, Assumptions.
## White hat - facts
Three short lists: Known, Unknown, Would change the decision.
## Red hat - feelings
Bullets, one per person or group.
## Black hat - risks
Table: Risk | Why | Likelihood (H/M/L) | Impact (H/M/L).
## Yellow hat - benefits
Bullets, each with the condition it depends on.
## Green hat - alternatives
Numbered options, one or two sentences each.
## Blue hat - synthesis
One short paragraph, then "Would change this view:" with one or two bullets.
## Next steps
Table: Action | Owner | By when.
</output_format>
````
