agentleFS
duthahoduthaho/skillhub/.claude/skills/ideate/SKILL.md

ideate

Skill9 starsChanged 15 days agoMITView on GitHub

Structured idea generation for a project or a blank-slate problem — ideas worth pursuing, not the first one that sticks. Grounds in the current repo (AGENTS.md/README) or a freeform problem, then diverges across named lenses (adjacent user, removed constraint, inversion, and more) so a run yields range, not ten variations of one idea. Fights premature convergence — nothing judged until the divergence quota is met — then verdicts each idea EXPLORE/PARK/DROP, where DROP is cheap. EXPLORE items become seeds for priorart (is it novel?) or feature (build it); verdicts persist in out/ideate/tracker.md so repeat runs open with what's new. Keyless. Use to generate, brainstorm, or explore ideas or new directions for a project or problem — e.g. "/ideate", "/ideate <topic>", "brainstorm features for X". For whether an idea already exists use priorart; for competitor features use scout; for choosing between named options use verdict.

36 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use daily-arxiv, exp-eval and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-arxiv

    每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文,过滤相关性,auto-ingest 高优先级论文,检测 SOTA 更新

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-eval

    实验判决门:Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • skyllwtSkill

    exp-pilot-eval

    Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • skyllwtSkill

    exp-pilot-run

    Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • phanghonghaoSkill

    poster

    HTML/CSS A4 海报生成。从沙龙/活动 Markdown 文件生成科技风 A4 海报 PDF/PNG。Use when user mentions: poster, 海报, 海报生成, make poster, generate poster, 活动海报, 沙龙海报.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +6 more from Lambenthan
  • +1 more from skyllwt

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 33 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read out/ideate/tracker.md if it exists: ideas already generated, verdicts already made.

    line 46
  2. Distinctive:

    Completion criterion: every applicable lens worked, quota met, ideas captured verbatim — no pruning yet.

    line 67
  3. Distinctive:

    Every surviving idea gets exactly one label, with a reason:

    line 84
  4. Distinctive:

    Completion criterion: every survivor labeled EXPLORE / PARK / DROP with a reason, and every EXPLORE names its next skill.

    line 97

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 33 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

ideate — diverge before you converge

/ideate — generate ideas for THIS repo (reads its AGENTS.md/README) /ideate <topic|problem> — generate ideas for an arbitrary problem, no repo needed

Answer one question: what could this become that isn't obvious yet — and which of those directions actually deserves effort? Both halves matter. A session that only sprays ideas is a whiteboard; one that judges before it has range is just the first idea wearing a verdict. The deliverable is a short list of directions each carrying its own reason to live or die.

The enemy the whole skill is built against is premature convergence — latching onto the first plausible idea and spending the session polishing it. Every step below exists to hold divergence open long enough to be worth converging on.

Step 0 — Frame the ground

You cannot diverge from nothing; fix a starting point first.

  • With a repo (/ideate alone): read AGENTS.md (the map skill writes it), README, and the top-reacted open issues. Distill the project's job in one sentence and its differentiation axis — the thing it does that alternatives don't, which every later verdict is judged against.
  • With a topic (/ideate <problem>): restate the problem in one sentence and name the user and the constraint that hurts most. Missing pieces are assumptions — state them, don't invent facts.
  • Read out/ideate/tracker.md if it exists: ideas already generated, verdicts already made. A DROPped idea isn't re-raised unless something changed; repeat runs open with "Since last ideate" — what's new in the repo or problem since.

Completion criterion: job, user, and differentiation/constraint written down before any idea is generated.

Step 1 — Diverge (judgment forbidden here)

Generate ideas by working the lenses in references/lenses.md — do not freehand a flat list, which is how every session collapses into variations of one idea. Take each lens in turn and force at least one idea from it, even a weak one; range comes from the lenses being different, not from trying harder on one.

Hard rule: no evaluating, ranking, or "but that won't work" until the quota is met — aim for at least two ideas per lens worked. Judging mid- divergence is premature convergence by another name; a bad idea from an unworked lens is worth more here than a safe idea restated.

Completion criterion: every applicable lens worked, quota met, ideas captured verbatim — no pruning yet.

Step 2 — Cluster and sharpen

Now converge, but only halfway. Group the raw ideas into clusters of the same underlying bet; within each cluster keep the sharpest single statement and fold the rest into it. Kill exact duplicates. For each survivor write one line: what changes for the user if this exists. An idea whose user-impact line can't be written is a DROP waiting to happen — surface that now, not after building.

Completion criterion: a deduplicated list, each survivor with a one-line user impact.

Step 3 — Verdict each survivor

Every surviving idea gets exactly one label, with a reason:

  • EXPLORE — worth real effort next. Must clear two bars: it advances the differentiation axis (or genuinely relieves the worst constraint), and its effort is justified by that impact. "It sounds cool" clears neither.
  • PARK — plausible but not now; record the trigger that would revive it.
  • DROP — off-axis, redundant, or impact doesn't pay for effort. DROP is the cheap default; a session that EXPLOREs everything has judged nothing.

Hand off cleanly: each EXPLORE is a ready seed — route it to priorart (does it already exist before you build?) or straight to feature (build it). Name the handoff in the verdict.

Completion criterion: every survivor labeled EXPLORE / PARK / DROP with a reason, and every EXPLORE names its next skill.

Step 4 — Persist

Append the run to out/ideate/tracker.md: date, the frame (job + axis), and every idea with its verdict and reason — including DROPs, so they aren't re-raised next run. This is the memory that lets the next /ideate open with "Since last ideate" instead of regenerating the same list.

Completion criterion: tracker written; run reproducible from it.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.