cw-brainstorming

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Brainstorming Capture

头脑风暴捕捉

Capture story brainstorming in working note format that preserves creative freedom.

以保留创作自由度的工作笔记格式，捕捉故事头脑风暴内容。

Core Principle

核心原则

Record brainstorming WITHOUT:

Over-elaborating on what was stated
Mixing user statements with AI suggestions unmarked
Inventing excessive details
Constraining future creativity

AI suggestions are valuable but must be clearly marked and kept minimal.

记录头脑风暴时，不得：

对明确表述的内容过度展开
将用户表述与未标记的AI建议混为一谈
编造过多细节
限制未来的创作空间

AI建议具有价值，但必须清晰标记且保持极简。

Types of Brainstorming

头脑风暴的类型

This skill handles all brainstorming types:

Story/plot directions (general narrative exploration)
Chapter structure and beats (planning individual chapters)
Worldbuilding and lore (magic systems, cultures, history, geography)
Character development (motivations, arcs, relationships)
Timeline and continuity (chronology, contradictions)

All share core principles (minimal capture, source tagging, preserve vagueness). See references/ for specialized guidance:

```
chapter-planning.md
```
- Capturing beat and scene exploration
```
worldbuilding.md
```
- Exploring fictional world elements (use web search for research)
```
character-development.md
```
- Exploring motivations, arcs, relationships
```
continuity-timeline.md
```
- Timeline tracking and contradiction handling

本技能适用于所有类型的头脑风暴：

故事/情节方向（一般性叙事探索）
章节结构与节奏（规划单个章节）
世界观构建与设定（魔法体系、文化、历史、地理）
角色塑造（动机、成长弧光、关系）
时间线与连贯性（年表、矛盾点）

所有类型均遵循核心原则（极简记录、来源标记、保留模糊性）。请查看references/目录获取专项指导：

```
chapter-planning.md
```
- 捕捉章节节奏与场景探索
```
worldbuilding.md
```
- 探索虚构世界元素（可使用网络搜索进行调研）
```
character-development.md
```
- 探索角色动机、成长弧光与关系
```
continuity-timeline.md
```
- 时间线追踪与矛盾处理

Critical Rules

关键规则

1. Minimal Capture Only

1. 仅做极简记录

Record ONLY what the user explicitly states. Do NOT add elaborations, examples they didn't give, or details to fill gaps.

The problem is mixing, not suggesting:

❌ User: "Character A competes with B" → Capture: "A and B compete for leadership through a tournament with three rounds..." ✅ User: "Character A competes with B" → Capture: "A and B compete" + optional: "<AI>Tournament? Political? Trial?</AI>"

仅记录用户明确表述的内容。不得添加他们未提及的展开、示例或填补空白的细节。

问题出在内容混杂，而非提供建议：

❌ 用户：“角色A与B相互竞争” → 记录：“A与B通过三轮锦标赛争夺领导权……” ✅ 用户：“角色A与B相互竞争” → 记录：“A与B相互竞争” + 可选：

<AI>锦标赛？政治斗争？试炼？</AI>

2. Source Tagging (Simple 3-Tag System)

2. 来源标记（简单的三类标签体系）

Default: Untagged = user said it. Most ideas come from the user, so treat them as the default.

ONLY use tags for special context:

<AI>...</AI>
- AI suggestions/possibilities (MUST be clearly wrapped)
- Use when offering ideas user didn't state
- Keep to 2-3 brief options
- Example:
```
<AI>Competition could be: tournament-style, political maneuvering, or trial-based</AI>
```
<hidden>...</hidden>
- Author-only information meant to be revealed later
- Secret character motivations
- Planned twists/revelations
- Behind-the-scenes reasons unknown to characters/readers yet
- Example:
```
<hidden>Z secretly wants them both to fail so he can reclaim leadership</hidden>
```

When to offer AI suggestions:

User asks for ideas
User seems stuck
Offering brief possibilities to spark creativity

When to stay minimal:

User is actively exploring their own ideas
Just capturing an ongoing discussion
User didn't ask for suggestions

默认规则：未标记内容 = 用户表述。 大多数想法来自用户，因此将其设为默认。

仅在特殊场景下使用标签：

<AI>...</AI>
- AI提出的建议/可能性（必须清晰包裹在标签内）
- 仅在提供用户未提及的想法时使用
- 保持2-3个简短选项
- 示例：
```
<AI>竞争形式可以是：锦标赛式、政治操纵或试炼式</AI>
```
<hidden>...</hidden>
- 仅作者可见、后续将揭晓的信息
- 秘密的角色动机
- 计划中的反转/揭秘
- 角色/读者目前未知的幕后原因
- 示例：
```
<hidden>Z暗中希望A和B两败俱伤，以便重新夺回领导权</hidden>
```

何时提供AI建议：

用户主动寻求想法
用户似乎陷入瓶颈
提供简短可能性以激发创作灵感

何时保持极简：

用户正在积极探索自身想法
仅需捕捉正在进行的讨论
用户未要求提供建议

3. Preserve Vagueness

3. 保留模糊性

Keep it vague if user leaves it vague:

"might create tension" → Record as uncertain
"thinking about" → Record as consideration
"maybe" → Record as possibility

若用户表述模糊，则保持记录的模糊性：

“可能制造紧张感” → 记录为不确定
“正在考虑” → 记录为待考量
“也许” → 记录为可能性

4. Multiple Options Coexist

4. 允许多种选项共存

Working notes can contain contradictions and multiple possibilities. Don't resolve them - just list the options being considered.

工作笔记可包含矛盾点与多种可能性。无需解决这些矛盾，只需列出正在考量的选项即可。

Output Approach

输出方法

Use whatever structure fits the discussion. Could be:

Bullet lists
Sections organized by topic
Timeline format
Character-focused groupings
Whatever captures the brainstorm clearly

Essential elements:

Minimal capture (user's words, not elaborations)
Vagueness preserved
AI suggestions wrapped in
```
<AI>
```
tags
Author-only info wrapped in
```
<hidden>
```
tags when relevant

Optional sections based on discussion:

Open questions to explore
Multiple options being considered
AI suggestions (if offered)
Contradictions to resolve later

采用适合讨论内容的任意结构。可以是：

项目符号列表
按主题划分的章节
时间线格式
以角色为核心的分组
任何能清晰捕捉头脑风暴内容的结构

核心要素：

极简记录（使用用户的表述，而非自行展开）
保留模糊性
AI建议包裹在
```
<AI>
```
标签内
相关时，将仅作者可见的信息包裹在
```
<hidden>
```
标签内

根据讨论内容可添加的可选章节：

待探索的开放式问题
正在考量的多种选项
AI建议（若已提供）
后续需解决的矛盾点

Teaching Example: The Distinction

教学示例：正确与错误的区别

User Says:

用户表述：

"I'm thinking character X and character Y compete for leadership. Maybe this creates tension with character Z who was the previous leader."

“我在考虑角色X和角色Y争夺领导权。也许这会与前任领导者角色Z产生紧张关系。”

✅ Good Capture:

✅ 优秀记录：

markdown

undefined

markdown

undefined

Leadership Competition Notes

领导权竞争笔记

X and Y compete for leadership
Z was previous leader
May create tension with Z (uncertain)

Open questions:

Form of competition?
How does Z respond?
Outcome?

undefined

X与Y争夺领导权
Z是前任领导者
可能与Z产生紧张关系（不确定）

开放式问题：

竞争形式？
Z会作何反应？
结果如何？

undefined

❌ Bad Capture:

❌ 糟糕记录：

markdown

undefined

markdown

undefined

Leadership Competition Arc

领导权竞争弧光

X and Y compete for leadership after Z steps down. Z feels threatened by the challenge to his authority.

The competition unfolds in three stages:

Announcement and initial positioning
First challenge where X demonstrates strength
Second challenge where Y shows wisdom ... [20 more invented beats]


**Why bad?** Added massive elaboration the user never stated.

X与Y在Z卸任后争夺领导权。Z对自身权威受到挑战感到威胁。

竞争分为三个阶段展开：

宣布竞争与初始定位
第一阶段挑战：X展现实力
第二阶段挑战：Y展现智慧 ... [额外编造的20个情节节点]


**为何糟糕？** 添加了大量用户从未提及的展开内容。

✅ Good with AI Suggestions:

✅ 包含AI建议的优秀记录：

markdown

undefined

markdown

undefined

Leadership Competition Notes

领导权竞争笔记

X and Y compete for leadership
Z was previous leader
May create tension with Z (uncertain)

Open questions:

Competition format: <AI>tournament-style? political maneuvering? trial-based?</AI>
Z's response: <AI>oppose both? support one? stay neutral?</AI>
Resolution?

undefined

X与Y争夺领导权
Z是前任领导者
可能与Z产生紧张关系（不确定）

开放式问题：

竞争形式：<AI>锦标赛式？政治操纵？试炼式？</AI>
Z的反应：<AI>反对双方？支持一方？保持中立？</AI>
结果如何？

undefined

✅ Good with Hidden Author Notes:

✅ 包含隐藏作者笔记的优秀记录：

markdown

undefined

markdown

undefined

Leadership Competition Notes

领导权竞争笔记

X and Y compete for leadership
Z was previous leader
May create tension with Z (uncertain)
<hidden>Z is secretly manipulating both X and Y to destroy each other, planning to reclaim power after they're both discredited</hidden>

Open questions:

Competition format?
Outcome?


**Why use `<hidden>`?** The manipulation twist is planned for later reveal. Readers/characters don't know yet, but the author needs to track it while brainstorming.

X与Y争夺领导权
Z是前任领导者
可能与Z产生紧张关系（不确定）
<hidden>Z暗中操纵X与Y相互倾轧，计划在两人身败名裂后重新夺回权力</hidden>

开放式问题：

竞争形式？
结果如何？


**为何使用`<hidden>`？** 操纵反转是计划后续揭晓的内容。读者/角色目前并不知情，但作者在头脑风暴时需要追踪该设定。

If You're Over-Elaborating

若你正在过度展开

Stop if you're writing:

Numbered scene lists
Detailed backstories
Specific dialogue
Precise timelines
Multiple paragraphs per point
Examples user didn't mention

Wrap AI suggestions in

<AI>

tags, keep minimal (2-3 options).

当你写下以下内容时，请立即停止：

编号场景列表
详细背景故事
具体对话
精确时间线
每个要点对应多个段落
用户未提及的示例

将AI建议包裹在

<AI>

标签内，保持极简（2-3个选项）。

Success Check

成功检验标准

Good: User says "Yes, that's what I said" Bad: User says "I never said all that"

Notes should feel skeletal and incomplete. That's the point - preserves creative freedom.

优秀： 用户表示“对，这就是我说的内容” 糟糕： 用户表示“我从没说过这些”

笔记应显得框架化且不完整。这正是关键所在——保留创作自由度。

After Capturing: Discuss and Explore

记录完成后：讨论与探索

DON'T just write notes and stop. After capturing, engage with the user to help develop ideas:

Useful follow-ups:

Clarifying questions: "You mentioned tension with Z - are you thinking internal conflict or external confrontation?"
Potential directions: "This setup could go a few ways: political intrigue, personal drama, or action-focused. What feels right?"
Exploring implications: "If Z opposes them both, how does that change the power dynamics?"
Connecting threads: "This competition ties into the earlier succession crisis you mentioned - want to explore that link?"

Keep it conversational:

Offer 2-3 possibilities, not exhaustive lists
Ask about what excites the user
Help clarify vague ideas without over-defining them
Point out interesting implications or contradictions

The goal: Help the user think through their ideas, not take over the creative process.

不要仅写完笔记就停止。 记录完成后，与用户互动以协助其完善想法：

实用的后续操作：

澄清问题： “你提到与Z的紧张关系——你指的是内部冲突还是外部对抗？”
潜在方向： “这个设定可以有几种走向：政治阴谋、个人戏剧或动作导向。你觉得哪种合适？”
探索影响： “如果Z反对双方，这会如何改变权力格局？”
关联线索： “这场竞争与你之前提到的继承危机有关——要不要探索两者的联系？”

保持对话式风格：

提供2-3种可能性，而非详尽列表
询问用户感兴趣的方向
协助模糊想法变得清晰，但不过度定义
指出有趣的影响或矛盾点

目标： 协助用户梳理自身想法，而非主导创作过程。

Skills are Composable

技能可组合使用

Feel free to combine with other skills when helpful (e.g., using cw-official-docs to document finalized worldbuilding, or cw-story-critique to analyze what you're brainstorming).

如有需要，可与其他技能结合使用（例如，使用cw-official-docs记录已定稿的世界观设定，或使用cw-story-critique分析正在头脑风暴的内容）。

File Placement (Claude Code)

文件存放位置（Claude Code）

Check project docs for conventions
Look at where similar content lives
Place near related content
Name:
```
brainstorm-[topic].md
```
Ask if unclear

查看项目文档中的约定
参考同类内容的存放位置
放置在相关内容附近
命名格式：
```
brainstorm-[topic].md
```
若有疑问，可向用户确认