← LeaderboardThe Skill Leaderboard

workflows:ideate

Divergent research ideation — generate many candidate directions, then adversarially filter to the strongest

Published by brycewang-stanford ↗brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills

Try your first task

workflows:ideate

Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.

Use workflows:ideate to generate and adversarially filter research directions for [research question], producing ranked surviving candidates, rejected ideas with reasons, and recommended next steps.

Required inputs

  • [research question]

User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗

SKILL.md

name: workflows:ideatedescription: "Divergent research ideation — generate many candidate directions, then adversarially filter to the strongest"argument-hint: "<research question, puzzle, or data opportunity>"allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Bash

Research Ideation

Divergent exploration before convergent brainstorming. Generate many candidates, then filter ruthlessly.

Phase 0: Scope the Ideation

Read $ARGUMENTS. If the user provides a specific research question, ideate around it. If they provide a broad topic, explore broadly.

Phase 1: Generate Candidates (Divergent)

Generate 15-20 candidate research directions. Use these research-adapted ideation frames:

  1. Identification weakness — What existing results have weak identification? What new variation could fix it?
  2. Computational bottleneck — What problems are infeasible with current methods but tractable with new estimators or hardware?
  3. Data limitation workaround — What would become possible with data that is now available but underexploited?
  4. Alternative estimator class — What if the standard approach (e.g., linear IV) were replaced with a different class (e.g., ML, structural, Bayesian)?
  5. Relaxed assumption — What results depend on assumptions that could be relaxed? What happens when you relax them?
  6. Literature gap — What do practitioners need that academics haven't provided? What do adjacent fields know that this field doesn't?

Dispatch methods-explorer and literature-scout agents in parallel to ground the ideation in real methods and recent papers.

Iron rule: Generate the full candidate list before critiquing any idea. Push past the first few obvious directions.

Phase 2: Adversarial Filter (Convergent)

Entry condition: Phase 1 produced at least 15 candidate directions (the iron rule). Exit condition: 5-7 survivors identified, all rejected candidates have one-line rejection reasons.

For each candidate, evaluate:

  • Feasibility (0-100): Can this be done with available data, methods, and time?
  • Contribution (0-100): Would a top journal care about this result?
  • Identification (0-100): Is there a credible identification strategy?

Dispatch identification-critic to attack the top 10 candidates. Only candidates surviving adversarial scrutiny advance.

Target: 5-7 survivors with explicit rejection reasons for all others.

Phase 3: Output

Write the ideation document to docs/ideation/ with YAML frontmatter:

---
status: complete
date: YYYY-MM-DD
topic: <descriptive topic>
candidates_generated: <N>
survivors: <N>
---

Content:

  • Surviving candidates ranked by (Contribution x Identification x Feasibility)
  • For each survivor: 2-3 sentence description, confidence score, key risk
  • Rejected candidates with one-line rejection reason
  • Recommended next step: /workflows:brainstorm on the top 1-2 candidates

Handoff

End with: "Ideation complete. Run /workflows:brainstorm [top candidate] to develop requirements for the strongest direction."