Initial commit

skills/constraint-based-creativity/resources/examples/code-minimalism-api-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,465 @@
+# Constraint-Based Creativity: API Design with Minimalism Constraint
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+Design REST API for a task management service. Need to create clean, intuitive API that developers love using. Compete with established players (Todoist, Asana, etc.) by offering superior developer experience.
+
+## Context
+
+**What's been tried:** Initial unconstrained design produced typical REST API:
+- 23 endpoints across 6 resources
+- CRUD operations for everything (tasks, projects, users, tags, comments, attachments)
+- Complex nested routes: `/api/v1/projects/{id}/tasks/{taskId}/comments/{commentId}/attachments`
+- Auth tokens, pagination params, filtering, sorting on every endpoint
+- 147-page API documentation needed
+
+**Why we're stuck:** API feels bloated despite being "RESTful best practices." Developers in user testing confused by too many options. Onboarding taking 2+ hours just to understand available endpoints. Defaulting to "add more endpoints for more use cases" pattern.
+
+**Success criteria:**
+- New developer can make first successful API call in < 5 minutes
+- Complete API documentation fits on single page (not 147 pages)
+- Differentiated from competitor APIs (memorable, not just "another REST API")
+- Supports all core use cases without sacrificing capability
+
+## Active Constraints
+
+**Constraint 1: Maximum 5 HTTP Endpoints**
+- **Rationale:** Forces ruthless prioritization. Can't add endpoint for every use case. Must design for composability instead of proliferation.
+- **Enforcement:** API spec cannot exceed 5 endpoint definitions. Any new endpoint requires removing an existing one.
+
+**Constraint 2: Single-Page Documentation**
+- **Rationale:** If docs don't fit on one page, API is too complex. Forces clarity and simplicity in design.
+- **Enforcement:** Entire API reference (all endpoints, params, responses, examples) must render on single scrollable page.
+
+**Constraint 3: No Nested Routes Beyond 2 Levels**
+- **Rationale:** Prevents complexity creep from deeply nested resources. Forces flatter, more intuitive structure.
+- **Enforcement:** Routes like `/projects/{id}/tasks` are allowed (2 levels). Routes like `/projects/{id}/tasks/{taskId}/comments` are forbidden (3 levels).
+
+## Idea Generation Process
+
+**Technique used:** Constraint Escalation - started with 10 endpoints, progressively reduced to find creative sweet spot
+
+**Volume:** Generated 27 different API designs across 4 constraint levels
+
+**Mindset:** Initial resistance ("5 endpoints is impossible!"), then breakthrough moment when team realized constraint forced better abstraction.
+
+## All Ideas Generated
+
+### Round 1: 10 endpoints (baseline - 50% reduction from 23)
+
+1. Standard CRUD for tasks (4 endpoints)
+2. Standard CRUD for projects (4 endpoints)
+3. Authentication (1 endpoint)
+4. Search (1 endpoint)
+   - Assessment: Still too many, documentation still multi-page
+
+### Round 2: 7 endpoints (70% reduction)
+
+5. Combine tasks + projects into "items" resource (4 endpoints for items)
+6. Auth (1 endpoint)
+7. Query (1 endpoint for search/filter)
+8. Batch operations (1 endpoint)
+   - Assessment: Better, but "items" abstraction feels forced
+
+### Round 3: 5 endpoints (breakthrough target - 78% reduction)
+
+9. **Design A: Everything is a "node"**
+   - POST /nodes (create)
+   - GET /nodes (list/search)
+   - GET /nodes/{id} (read)
+   - PATCH /nodes/{id} (update)
+   - DELETE /nodes/{id} (delete)
+   - Assessment: ⭐ Clean but too generic, loses semantic meaning
+
+10. **Design B: Action-oriented**
+    - POST /create
+    - GET /query
+    - POST /update
+    - POST /delete
+    - GET /status
+    - Assessment: RESTful purists would hate it, but simple
+
+11. **Design C: Resource + actions**
+    - POST /tasks (create)
+    - GET /tasks (list all with query params)
+    - GET /tasks/{id} (get specific)
+    - PATCH /tasks/{id} (update)
+    - POST /tasks/batch (batch operations)
+    - Assessment: Can't handle projects, tags, users in 5 endpoints
+
+12. **Design D: GraphQL-like but REST**
+    - POST /query (get anything)
+    - POST /mutate (change anything)
+    - POST /auth (authentication)
+    - GET /schema (API schema)
+    - GET /health (health check)
+    - Assessment: ⭐ Interesting, but not really REST anymore
+
+13. **Design E: Hypermedia-driven**
+    - GET / (entry point, returns links to everything)
+    - POST /{resource} (create anything)
+    - GET /{resource} (list anything)
+    - GET /{resource}/{id} (get anything)
+    - PATCH /{resource}/{id} (update anything)
+    - Assessment: ⭐⭐ Generic but powerful, documentation points to root
+
+### Round 4: 3 endpoints (extreme - 87% reduction)
+
+14. **Design F: Commands pattern**
+    - POST /command (send any command)
+    - GET /query (query any data)
+    - GET / (documentation + schema)
+    - Assessment: ⭐⭐ Ultra-minimal, but loses REST semantics
+
+15. **Design G: Single endpoint**
+    - POST /api (everything goes here, JSON-RPC style)
+    - Assessment: Too extreme, not REST, documentation nightmare
+
+## Insights from "Failed" Ideas
+
+- **Designs 1-8 (10-7 endpoints):** Constraint not tight enough, still thinking in traditional CRUD patterns
+- **Design G (1 endpoint):** Over-constrained to point of paralysis, lost REST principles entirely
+- **Breakthrough zone:** 5 endpoints forced abstraction without losing usability
+- **Key insight:** Generic resource paths (`/{resource}`) + comprehensive query params = flexibility without endpoint proliferation
+
+## Top Solutions (Refined)
+
+### Solution 1: Hypermedia-Driven Minimalist API
+
+**Description:**
+
+Five-endpoint API that uses generic resource routing + HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State) to provide full functionality while staying minimal.
+
+**The 5 Endpoints:**
+
+```
+1. GET /
+   - Entry point (root document)
+   - Returns all available resources and links
+   - Includes inline documentation
+   - Response:
+     {
+       "resources": ["tasks", "projects", "users", "tags"],
+       "actions": {
+         "create": "POST /{resource}",
+         "list": "GET /{resource}",
+         "get": "GET /{resource}/{id}",
+         "update": "PATCH /{resource}/{id}",
+         "delete": "DELETE /{resource}/{id}"
+       },
+       "docs": "https://docs.example.com",
+       "_links": {
+         "tasks": {"href": "/tasks"},
+         "projects": {"href": "/projects"}
+       }
+     }
+
+2. POST /{resource}
+   - Create any resource (tasks, projects, users, tags, etc.)
+   - Resource type determined by URL path
+   - Example: POST /tasks, POST /projects
+   - Response includes _links for related actions
+
+3. GET /{resource}
+   - List all items of resource type
+   - Query params: ?filter, ?sort, ?limit, ?offset
+   - Example: GET /tasks?filter=completed:false&sort=dueDate
+   - Response includes pagination links and available filters
+
+4. GET /{resource}/{id}
+   - Retrieve specific resource by ID
+   - Response includes _links to related resources and actions
+   - Example: GET /tasks/123 includes link to project, assigned user
+
+5. PATCH /{resource}/{id}
+   - Update specific resource
+   - Partial updates supported (send only changed fields)
+   - DELETE also uses this endpoint with {"deleted": true} flag
+   - Atomic updates with version checking
+```
+
+**How constraints shaped it:**
+
+The 5-endpoint limit forced us to stop thinking "one endpoint per use case" and start thinking "generic operations on any resource." We couldn't add `/tasks/batch` or `/projects/{id}/tasks` or `/search` - those would exceed 5 endpoints. Instead, batch operations go through PATCH with arrays, nested resources are discovered via hypermedia links, search uses query params on GET.
+
+Single-page documentation constraint forced us to make the API self-documenting (GET / returns structure) rather than writing extensive docs for 23 different endpoints. The API documentation became the API itself.
+
+No-nesting-beyond-2-levels constraint meant we couldn't do `/projects/{id}/tasks/{taskId}/comments` - instead, comments are queried via `GET /comments?taskId=123`, which is actually simpler for client code.
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Extreme simplicity: 5 endpoints to learn (vs 23 in original design)
+- Self-documenting: GET / explains the entire API
+- Extensible: Add new resources without adding endpoints
+- Consistent: Same pattern for all resources (POST to create, GET to list, etc.)
+- Developer-friendly: First API call can happen in 2 minutes (just GET /)
+- Documentation fits on single page (literally - root response + 5 endpoint patterns)
+- Hypermedia enables discovery (clients follow links rather than construct URLs)
+
+**Implementation notes:**
+
+**Resource Definitions:**
+```javascript
+// All resources share same interface
+interface Resource {
+  id: string;
+  type: string;  // "task" | "project" | "user" | "tag"
+  attributes: Record<string, any>;
+  relationships?: Record<string, ResourceLink>;
+  _links: {
+    self: { href: string };
+    [key: string]: { href: string };
+  };
+}
+```
+
+**Example: Create task**
+```bash
+POST /tasks
+{
+  "title": "Write API docs",
+  "completed": false,
+  "projectId": "proj-123"
+}
+
+Response:
+{
+  "id": "task-456",
+  "type": "task",
+  "attributes": {
+    "title": "Write API docs",
+    "completed": false
+  },
+  "relationships": {
+    "project": {"data": {"type": "project", "id": "proj-123"}}
+  },
+  "_links": {
+    "self": {"href": "/tasks/task-456"},
+    "project": {"href": "/projects/proj-123"},
+    "update": {"href": "/tasks/task-456", "method": "PATCH"},
+    "complete": {"href": "/tasks/task-456", "method": "PATCH", "body": {"completed": true}}
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Example: Query with filters**
+```bash
+GET /tasks?filter=completed:false&filter=projectId:proj-123&sort=-dueDate&limit=20
+
+Response:
+{
+  "data": [ /* array of task resources */ ],
+  "meta": {
+    "total": 45,
+    "limit": 20,
+    "offset": 0
+  },
+  "_links": {
+    "self": {"href": "/tasks?filter=completed:false&filter=projectId:proj-123&sort=-dueDate&limit=20"},
+    "next": {"href": "/tasks?filter=completed:false&filter=projectId:proj-123&sort=-dueDate&limit=20&offset=20"}
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Example: Batch update**
+```bash
+PATCH /tasks/task-456
+{
+  "updates": [
+    {"id": "task-456", "completed": true},
+    {"id": "task-789", "completed": true}
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+**Risks/Limitations:**
+- Generic routing may feel less "RESTful" to purists
+- Requires client to understand hypermedia (though _links help)
+- Query param complexity could grow (mitigate with clear documentation)
+- Initial learning curve for developers used to specific endpoints
+
+### Solution 2: Command-Query API
+
+**Description:**
+
+Extreme minimalism using Command Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS) pattern with only 3 endpoints.
+
+**The 3 Endpoints:**
+
+```
+1. POST /command
+   - Send any write operation (create, update, delete)
+   - Body specifies command type and parameters
+   - Example:
+     {
+       "command": "createTask",
+       "data": {"title": "Write docs", "projectId": "proj-123"}
+     }
+
+2. POST /query
+   - Retrieve any data (list, get, search, filter)
+   - Body specifies query type and parameters
+   - Example:
+     {
+       "query": "getTasks",
+       "filters": {"completed": false, "projectId": "proj-123"},
+       "sort": ["-dueDate"],
+       "limit": 20
+     }
+
+3. GET /
+   - API schema and available commands/queries
+   - Self-documenting entry point
+```
+
+**How constraints shaped it:**
+
+3-endpoint constraint forced us completely away from REST resource-based thinking toward command/query pattern. We couldn't map resources to endpoints, so we mapped *intentions* (commands/queries) to a single endpoint each. This wouldn't exist in unconstrained design because REST resource mapping is default pattern.
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Ultimate minimalism: 3 endpoints total
+- Clear separation of reads (queries) vs writes (commands)
+- All commands versioned and auditable (event sourcing compatible)
+- Extremely flexible (add new commands without new endpoints)
+
+**Risks/Limitations:**
+- Not REST (breaks HTTP verb semantics)
+- POST for queries feels wrong to REST purists
+- Loses HTTP caching benefits (GET query would cache better)
+- Requires comprehensive command/query documentation
+
+### Solution 3: Smart Defaults API
+
+**Description:**
+
+5 endpoints with "intelligent defaults" that make common use cases zero-config while allowing full customization.
+
+**The 5 Endpoints:**
+
+```
+1. GET /
+   - Entry point + documentation
+
+2. POST /{resource}
+   - Create with smart defaults
+   - Example: POST /tasks with just {"title": "Write docs"}
+   - Auto-assigns: current user, default project, due date (24h from now)
+
+3. GET /{resource}
+   - Defaults to useful view (not everything)
+   - GET /tasks → uncompleted tasks for current user, sorted by due date
+   - Full query: GET /tasks?view=all&user=*&completed=*
+
+4. GET /{resource}/{id}
+   - Retrieve specific item
+   - Response includes related items intelligently
+   - GET /tasks/123 → includes project, assigned user, recent comments (last 5)
+
+5. POST /{resource}/{id}/action
+   - Semantic actions instead of PATCH
+   - POST /tasks/123/complete (vs PATCH with {"completed": true})
+   - POST /tasks/123/assign?userId=456
+   - POST /tasks/123/move?projectId=789
+```
+
+**How constraints shaped it:**
+
+5-endpoint limit meant we couldn't have separate endpoints for common actions (complete task, assign task, move task, etc.). Instead of PATCH with various payloads, we created semantic action endpoint that's more intuitive for developers. The constraint forced us to think: "What actions do developers actually want?" vs "What CRUD operations exist?"
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Developer-friendly (semantic actions match mental model)
+- Smart defaults reduce API calls (get task includes related data)
+- Progressive disclosure (simple cases are simple, complex cases possible)
+
+**Risks/Limitations:**
+- "Actions" endpoint could grow complex
+- Magic defaults might surprise users
+- Less "pure REST" than Solution 1
+
+## Evaluation
+
+**Constraint compliance:** ✓ All solutions respect 5-endpoint max (Solution 2 uses only 3), single-page documentation, and no deep nesting
+
+**Novelty assessment:** All solutions are novel (score: 5/5)
+- Solution 1: Hypermedia-driven design is uncommon in modern APIs
+- Solution 2: Command-Query pattern breaks REST entirely (radical)
+- Solution 3: Semantic actions vs CRUD is differentiated
+- None would exist with unconstrained design (would default to 23-endpoint CRUD API)
+
+**Problem fit:** Solutions address original challenge
+- **Developer onboarding < 5 min:** ✓ GET / self-documents, simple patterns
+- **Single-page docs:** ✓ All solutions achievable with 1-page documentation
+- **Differentiation:** ✓ All three approaches are memorable vs typical REST APIs
+- **Supports use cases:** ✓ Generic patterns support all original use cases
+
+**Actionability:** All three designs can be implemented immediately
+
+## Creative Breakthrough Explanation
+
+The constraint-driven breakthrough happened when we stopped asking "How do we fit 23 endpoints into 5?" and started asking "How do we design an API that only needs 5 endpoints?"
+
+**Thinking pattern broken:**
+- Old pattern: "Each use case needs an endpoint" (additive thinking)
+- New pattern: "Each endpoint should handle multiple use cases" (multiplicative thinking)
+
+**Unexpected angle revealed:**
+Minimalism isn't about removing features - it's about better abstraction. Generic `/{resource}` pattern with query params provides MORE flexibility than specific endpoints, not less.
+
+**Why wouldn't this exist in unconstrained brainstorming:**
+With no constraints, we defaulted to REST "best practices" which led to endpoint proliferation. The 5-endpoint constraint forced us to question whether those "best practices" were actually best for developer experience. Turns out, simplicity beats completeness for DX.
+
+**Real-world validation:**
+- Stripe API: Uses resource patterns (minimal endpoints)
+- GitHub API v3→v4: Moved from REST to GraphQL (single endpoint) for exactly this reason
+- Twilio API: Consistent resource patterns across all products
+
+The constraint helped us discover patterns that successful APIs already use.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Decision:** Implement Solution 1 (Hypermedia-Driven Minimalist API) as primary design
+
+**Rationale:**
+- Maintains REST principles (HTTP verbs matter)
+- Self-documenting (GET / returns structure)
+- Most familiar to developers (resource-based)
+- Proven pattern (HAL, JSON:API specs exist)
+- Best balance of minimalism and usability
+
+**Immediate actions:**
+1. Create OpenAPI spec for 5 endpoints (TODAY)
+2. Build prototype implementation (THIS WEEK)
+3. User test with 5 developers (NEXT WEEK)
+4. Measure onboarding time (target: < 5 minutes to first successful call)
+5. Write single-page documentation (NEXT WEEK)
+
+**Success metrics:**
+- Time to first API call (target: < 5 min)
+- Documentation page count (target: 1 page)
+- Developer satisfaction (NPS after onboarding)
+- Comparison: Our 5 endpoints vs competitor's 20+ endpoints
+
+## Self-Assessment (using rubric)
+
+**Constraint Integrity (5/5):** Rigorous adherence. Solution 1 uses exactly 5 endpoints. Documentation will fit on single page (verified with draft). No nesting beyond 2 levels.
+
+**Constraint-Creativity Causality (5/5):** Clear causality. Generic `/{resource}` pattern exists ONLY because 5-endpoint limit forbid per-use-case endpoints. Hypermedia self-documentation exists because single-page constraint forced self-documenting design.
+
+**Idea Volume & Quality (5/5):** Generated 15+ distinct API designs across 4 constraint levels. Top 3 solutions all score 5/5 novelty.
+
+**Problem-Solution Fit (5/5):** All solutions hit success criteria: < 5 min onboarding, single-page docs, differentiation, full capability.
+
+**Actionability (5/5):** Solution 1 includes OpenAPI spec, code examples, implementation notes, and testing plan. Can implement immediately.
+
+**Technical Rigor (5/5):** Solutions are architecturally sound. Hypermedia pattern is proven (HAL/JSON:API specs). Resource abstraction is clean.
+
+**Differentiation (5/5):** Design differentiates through minimalism (5 vs 23 endpoints), self-documentation (GET /), and developer experience focus.
+
+**Risk Honesty (4/5):** Acknowledged risks (hypermedia learning curve, query param complexity). Could add more mitigation details.
+
+**Documentation Quality (5/5):** Complete constraint-based-creativity.md file with full examples, code snippets, evaluation.
+
+**Breakthrough Clarity (5/5):** Explicitly explained how constraints drove creativity. Pattern shift from additive (endpoint per use case) to multiplicative (endpoint handles multiple use cases) is clearly articulated.
+
+**Overall Score: 4.9/5**
+
+API design is ready for implementation. Constraint-driven approach produced significantly better developer experience than unconstrained "REST best practices" approach.

skills/constraint-based-creativity/resources/examples/product-launch-guerrilla-marketing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+# Constraint-Based Creativity: Product Launch Guerrilla Marketing
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+Launch a new B2B SaaS product (team collaboration tool) to market with goal of 1,000 signups in first month. Need creative marketing campaign that gets attention in crowded market.
+
+## Context
+
+**What's been tried:** Traditional approaches considered
+- Paid ads on LinkedIn ($20K/month budget quoted)
+- Content marketing (would take 6+ months to build audience)
+- Conference sponsorships ($15K-50K per event)
+- PR agency ($10K/month retainer)
+
+**Why we're stuck:** All conventional approaches require significant budget we don't have. Team defaulting to "we can't compete without money" mindset. Ideas feel defeated before starting.
+
+**Success criteria:**
+- Generate 1,000 signups in 30 days
+- Cost per acquisition under $5
+- Build brand awareness in target market (engineering/product teams at tech companies)
+- Create memorable, differentiated campaign
+
+## Active Constraints
+
+**Constraint 1: Budget - $500 Maximum Total Spend**
+- **Rationale:** Forces creativity beyond paid media. Can't outspend competitors, so must out-think them. Low budget eliminates expensive conventional tactics.
+- **Enforcement:** All tactics must have documented costs under $500 total.
+
+**Constraint 2: Platform - Twitter + GitHub Only**
+- **Rationale:** Forces focus. Instead of spreading thin across all channels, dominate where target audience (developers/PMs) already congregates.
+- **Enforcement:** No tactics on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, or other platforms. Twitter and GitHub are the entire playing field.
+
+**Constraint 3: No Paid Promotion**
+- **Rationale:** Organic virality only. Forces ideas to be inherently shareable/interesting rather than amplified by money.
+- **Enforcement:** Zero ad spend. No boosted posts, no sponsored content, no influencer payments.
+
+## Idea Generation Process
+
+**Technique used:** Constraint Rotation Sprints (3 rounds of 10 minutes each)
+
+**Volume:** Generated 32 ideas across 3 constraint focus rounds
+
+**Mindset:** Initial resistance ("this is impossible"), but by round 2 team energized by the challenge. Constraint difficulty unlocked creativity.
+
+## All Ideas Generated
+
+### Round 1: Focus on $500 budget constraint (10 ideas)
+
+1. Free stickers ($200) mailed to anyone who requests
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Cute but low impact
+
+2. $500 bounty for best integration built by community
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Interesting, engages devs
+
+3. Sponsor a small hackathon ($500 venue/pizza)
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Limited reach, one-time
+
+4. Create 100 GitHub repos demonstrating use cases ($0)
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: SEO value, educational
+
+5. Daily Twitter threads documenting "building in public" ($0)
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Authentic, takes time
+
+6. "Tiny budget challenge": Document building company on $500
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Meta and interesting
+
+7. Commission artwork ($500) from developer-artist, make it public domain
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Unique, ownable asset
+
+8. Create CLI tool that's actually useful, includes subtle product promo ($0)
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Value-first approach
+
+9. Host AMA on r/programming ($0) + Twitter Spaces ($0)
+   - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Direct engagement, authentic
+
+10. Create comprehensive benchmark comparison ($0 research time)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: SEO + authority building
+
+### Round 2: Focus on Twitter + GitHub only (12 ideas)
+
+11. 30-day Twitter thread series: "Things I learned building our product"
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Storytelling, serialized content
+
+12. GitHub Actions workflow that developers can actually use (free distribution)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Utility-first, viral potential
+
+13. Live-code on Twitter (video) building common integration
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Educational, shows product value
+
+14. Create "anti-roadmap" GitHub repo (what we WON'T build and why)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Contrarian, honest, refreshing
+
+15. Twitter bot that solves common developer problem, mentions product
+    - Compliance: ✗ (might feel spammy) | Assessment: Risky
+
+16. "Tiny tools" GitHub org: 50 micro-tools, all showcase product API
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: SEO + utility, long-tail
+
+17. GitHub issue templates that non-customers can use
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Generous, builds goodwill
+
+18. Tweet source code snippets daily with "how it works" explanations
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Transparency, educational
+
+19. Create GitHub "awesome list" for collaboration tools (include ours honestly)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Authority, fair comparison
+
+20. Run "Twitter office hours" - answer any dev question daily for 30 days
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Time-intensive but high engagement
+
+21. Create memorable Twitter personality/voice (snarky? earnest? technical?)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Differentiation through tone
+
+22. GitHub repo: "Interview questions for team collaboration tools"
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Helps buyers evaluate ALL tools (generous)
+
+### Round 3: Focus on organic virality (10 ideas)
+
+23. "The $500 Company" - Document entire launch journey publicly
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: ⭐ Meta-story, highly shareable
+
+24. Create genuinely useful free tools first, product second
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: ⭐ Value-first, builds trust
+
+25. Controversial take: "Why most collaboration tools are built wrong"
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Attention-grabbing, risky
+
+26. Show real revenue numbers publicly (radical transparency)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Differentiated, bold
+
+27. Create "Collaboration Tool Bingo" card (poke fun at industry clichés)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: ⭐ Funny, relatable, shareable
+
+28. "Build your own [our product]" tutorial (gives away the secret sauce)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: ⭐ Generous, confident, educational
+
+29. Rate competitors honestly on public spreadsheet (include ourselves)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Brave, helpful, trustworthy
+
+30. Create crisis/incident templates (free, useful, shows product in action)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: Timely, practical value
+
+31. Start movement: "#NoMoreMeetings challenge" with our tool
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: ⭐ Aligns with pain point, movement potential
+
+32. Apologize publicly for something competitors do (but we don't)
+    - Compliance: ✓ | Assessment: ⭐ Contrarian positioning
+
+## Insights from "Failed" Ideas
+
+- **Idea #15 (Twitter bot):** Too promotional, violates "organic virality" spirit even if technically compliant
+- **Constraint tension revealed:** Hardest challenge is being interesting enough to spread WITHOUT money for amplification
+- **Pattern observed:** Ideas scoring ⭐ all share "generosity" angle - give away something valuable for free
+
+## Top Solutions (Refined)
+
+### Solution 1: "The $500 Startup" Public Journey
+
+**Description:**
+
+Launch product AND document the entire journey publicly as "The $500 Startup Challenge." Every dollar spent, every decision made, every failure encountered - shared in real-time via Twitter threads and GitHub repo.
+
+- **Twitter:** Daily thread updates (wins, losses, learnings, numbers)
+- **GitHub:** Public repo with all costs tracked, decisions documented, templates/tools shared
+- **Deliverables:** 30-day chronicle becomes case study, templates, and playbook others can use
+
+**How constraints shaped it:**
+
+This solution exists ONLY because of the constraints. With unlimited budget, we'd run conventional ads and never think to turn our limitation into our story. The $500 constraint became the entire narrative hook - it's not a bug, it's the feature. Platform constraint (Twitter + GitHub) forced us to storytelling formats (threads + repos) rather than polished landing pages. Organic-only constraint meant the story itself must be compelling enough to spread.
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Authentic and relatable (most startups are resource-constrained)
+- Built-in narrative tension ("Can they succeed on $500?")
+- Educational value (others learn from the journey)
+- Differentiates through transparency (competitors hide their budgets)
+- Meta-viral (the campaign IS the story)
+- Generates daily content without feeling promotional
+
+**Implementation notes:**
+
+**Week 1:** Launch announcement
+- Tweet: "We're launching a B2B SaaS product with a $500 budget. Total. Here's the plan: [thread]"
+- GitHub repo: Create "500-dollar-startup" repo with budget tracker ($500 remaining)
+- Commit: Daily updates to README with spend tracking
+
+**Week 2-4:** Daily chronicle
+- Daily Twitter thread (7am): Yesterday's progress, today's plan, $ spent, learning
+- Every dollar spent gets GitHub commit with rationale
+- Weekend: Long-form recap threads (3-5 tweets)
+- Engage authentically with every reply/question
+
+**Week 4:** Results summary
+- Final thread: Total signups, CAC, what worked/didn't, full financial breakdown
+- GitHub: Release all templates, scripts, playbooks as MIT licensed
+- Turn journey into permanent case study/resource
+
+**Budget allocation:**
+- Domain name: $12
+- Hosting (1 month): $5
+- Stickers (50): $100 (given to first 50 signups as "founding users")
+- GitHub Actions runner time: $20 (for automated tools we build)
+- Twitter spaces hosting tools: $0 (free)
+- Reserved for experiments: $363
+
+**Risks/Limitations:**
+- Requires consistent daily effort (30 days straight)
+- Vulnerability - public failure if we don't hit goals
+- Could appear gimmicky if not executed authentically
+- Copycat risk (others could run same constraint challenge)
+
+### Solution 2: "Generous Engineering" - Free Tools Arsenal
+
+**Description:**
+
+Build and open-source 10-15 genuinely useful dev tools/templates/workflows over 30 days, all showcasing product integration. Each tool solves a real problem for target audience. Tools live on GitHub, announced on Twitter, zero promotion - just pure utility.
+
+Tools include:
+1. GitHub Actions workflow for team notifications
+2. Incident response templates (runbooks)
+3. Meeting cost calculator (Chrome extension)
+4. Async standup bot (open source)
+5. Team health check template
+6. Collaboration metrics dashboard (open source)
+7. "Decision log" template
+8. Onboarding checklist generator
+9. Team documentation starter kit
+10. Integration examples repository
+
+**How constraints shaped it:**
+
+Budget constraint eliminated paid distribution, forcing "valuable enough to spread organically" approach. Can't buy attention, so must earn it through utility. Platform constraint (GitHub + Twitter) matches where devs already are - distribute where they work. Organic-only constraint means tools must be NO-STRINGS-ATTACHED valuable. Product mention is subtle (integration examples), not pushy.
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Builds genuine goodwill (helping before selling)
+- SEO value (10-15 repos ranking for relevant searches)
+- Demonstrates product capability (integration examples)
+- Long-tail value (tools keep attracting users after 30 days)
+- Community contribution potential (others fork/improve)
+- Positions team as "engineers who build useful things"
+
+**Implementation notes:**
+
+**Pre-launch:** Build 5 tools completely, outline next 5
+**Days 1-5:** Launch 1 tool per day
+- GitHub: Release with comprehensive README
+- Twitter: Announce with demo GIF, use case, why we built it
+- Zero product mention in tool itself
+- Links to product only in "built by" footer
+
+**Days 6-15:** Continue tool releases + community engagement
+- Respond to GitHub issues
+- Merge community PRs
+- Share user success stories
+
+**Days 16-30:** Integration showcase
+- Create "using these tools with [product]" examples
+- Not required, but available for those interested
+- Focus remains on tool utility
+
+**Budget allocation:**
+- Domain for tools site: $12
+- Hosting (static site): $5
+- GitHub Actions CI: $20
+- Designer time for og:images ($50 Fiverr): $50
+- Reserved: $413
+
+**Risks/Limitations:**
+- Requires significant engineering time (building 10-15 tools)
+- Tools must actually be useful (not vaporware)
+- Delayed attribution (hard to track which tool drove which signup)
+- Others could copy tools without attributing
+
+### Solution 3: "Collaboration Tool Bingo" + Movement
+
+**Description:**
+
+Create shareable "Collaboration Tool Bingo" card that pokes fun at industry clichés ("Synergy!", "Seamless integration!", "Revolutionize teamwork!", "10x productivity!"). Make it funny, relatable, and slightly self-deprecating. Launch #CollabToolBingo movement on Twitter.
+
+Launch with manifesto: "Most collaboration tools over-promise and under-deliver. Here's what we're building instead" + anti-bingo commitment (what we WON'T do).
+
+**How constraints shaped it:**
+
+Organic virality constraint forced "inherently shareable" approach - bingo cards are easy to screenshot and share. Budget constraint means can't buy attention, so must create "social currency" through humor. Platform constraint (Twitter) perfect for viral image-based content. This solution is pure constraint-driven creativity - wouldn't exist with paid media budget.
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Highly shareable (humor + relatable)
+- Positions product through contrast (anti-cliché stance)
+- Low effort to participate (#CollabToolBingo tweets)
+- Starts conversation about industry problems
+- Memorable and distinctive
+- Can evolve into movement/community
+
+**Implementation notes:**
+
+**Day 1:** Launch bingo card
+- Tweet bingo card image (16 clichés in 4x4 grid)
+- Thread: "If collaboration tools were honest" with explanation
+- Pin tweet for 30 days
+
+**Day 2-7:** Encourage participation
+- Retweet best bingo completions
+- Add new clichés based on community suggestions
+- Create "Bingo Hall of Fame" for funniest examples
+
+**Day 8-15:** Launch "Anti-Bingo Manifesto"
+- "We took the Bingo Card seriously. Here's what we're NOT building"
+- Commit publicly to avoiding each cliché
+- Explain how we're different
+
+**Day 16-30:** Community content
+- User-generated bingo cards
+- "Before/After" bingo (what they had vs what they wanted)
+- Expand into other SaaS bingo cards (community-driven)
+
+**Budget allocation:**
+- Designer for bingo card: $150 (Fiverr)
+- Domain for bingo microsite: $12
+- Hosting: $5
+- Reserved: $333
+
+**Risks/Limitations:**
+- Humor could fall flat or offend
+- Negative framing (criticizing competitors) could backfire
+- Requires cultural awareness (clichés must be universally recognized)
+- One-hit-wonder risk (viral moment doesn't translate to signups)
+
+## Evaluation
+
+**Constraint compliance:** ✓ All three solutions respect $500 budget, Twitter+GitHub platforms, and organic-only distribution
+
+**Novelty assessment:** All three solutions are novel (score: 5/5)
+- None would exist with unlimited budget (would run conventional ads instead)
+- Constraints directly shaped the creative direction
+- No competitors doing "The $500 Startup" or "Collaboration Bingo" campaigns
+
+**Problem fit:** Solutions address original challenge
+- **1,000 signups:** Viral potential + daily engagement + educational value = traffic
+- **Under $5 CAC:** All solutions well under $500 for 1K signups = $0.50 CAC if successful
+- **Brand awareness:** All three create memorable moments in target community
+- **Differentiation:** Transparency, generosity, humor = distinct from competitor marketing
+
+**Actionability:** All three can be executed immediately with existing team and budget
+
+## Creative Breakthrough Explanation
+
+The constraint-driven breakthroughs happened when we stopped viewing $500 as a limitation and started viewing it as:
+1. **The story** (Solution 1: The $500 constraint became the campaign narrative)
+2. **The focus** (Solution 2: Can't spread wide, so go deep with utility)
+3. **The freedom** (Solution 3: No budget for safe/boring, so take creative risks)
+
+**Thinking pattern broken:** "We need money to market" → "Our lack of money IS the marketing"
+
+**Unexpected angle revealed:** Transparency and vulnerability as differentiation strategy. Competitors hide their budgets and processes; we make ours the whole campaign.
+
+**Why wouldn't this exist in unconstrained brainstorming:** With $50K budget, we'd run LinkedIn ads and content marketing - conventional but forgettable. The $500 constraint forced us to think "What can ONLY we do with $500 that creates more attention than $50K in ads?" Answer: Turn the limitation into the story.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Decision:** Execute Solution 1 ("The $500 Startup") as primary campaign
+
+**Rationale:**
+- Highest narrative tension (can they succeed?)
+- Generates daily content (30 days of touchpoints)
+- Most authentic (real constraints, real challenges)
+- Educational value outlasts 30 days (becomes permanent resource)
+
+**Immediate actions:**
+1. Create GitHub repo "500-dollar-startup" with budget tracker (TODAY)
+2. Draft launch tweet thread (TOMORROW)
+3. Set up daily reminder for chronicle posts (TOMORROW)
+4. Build in public starting Day 1 (THIS WEEK)
+
+**Success metrics:**
+- Twitter followers gained
+- GitHub repo stars
+- Website signups (tracked via /500 UTM)
+- Media mentions
+- Community engagement (replies, retweets, issues)
+
+## Self-Assessment (using rubric)
+
+**Constraint Integrity (5/5):** All constraints rigorously respected. No bending rules. $500 is absolute limit. Twitter+GitHub only. Zero paid promotion.
+
+**Constraint-Creativity Causality (5/5):** Clear causality. These solutions exist BECAUSE of constraints, not despite them. Limitation became feature.
+
+**Idea Volume & Quality (5/5):** Generated 32 ideas in 30 minutes. Top 3 solutions are all novel (score 5/5 on novelty). Documented "failed" ideas and learnings.
+
+**Problem-Solution Fit (5/5):** All solutions address 1,000 signup goal, CAC target, brand awareness, and differentiation.
+
+**Actionability (5/5):** Solutions have detailed implementation plans, budget breakdowns, timeline, and next steps. Can execute immediately.
+
+**Strategic Insight (5/5):** Core insight is "constraint as campaign" - turning limitation into narrative advantage. This is replicable pattern for other resource-constrained launches.
+
+**Differentiation (5/5):** None of these campaigns exist in competitor space. Transparency and vulnerability as strategy is highly differentiated.
+
+**Risk Honesty (4/5):** Acknowledged risks (public failure, consistency required, vulnerability, copycat risk). Could add more mitigation strategies.
+
+**Documentation Quality (5/5):** Complete constraint-based-creativity.md file with all sections, metrics, causality explanation.
+
+**Breakthrough Clarity (5/5):** Explicitly explained how constraints drove creativity. Identified thinking pattern broken: "need money" → "lack of money IS the story."
+
+**Overall Score: 4.9/5**
+
+Campaign is ready for execution. Constraint-driven creativity successfully unlocked novel, differentiated, actionable marketing approach.