workflows:ideate
SkillDev toolsDivergent research ideation, generate many candidate directions, then adversarially filter to the strongest
Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.
Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.
Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.
Then ask your AI: use the workflows:ideate skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/auto-empirical-research-skills in skills/11-James-Traina-compound-science/skills/workflows-ideate/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
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:
- Identification weakness — What existing results have weak identification? What new variation could fix it?
- Computational bottleneck — What problems are infeasible with current methods but tractable with new estimators or hardware?
- Data limitation workaround — What would become possible with data that is now available but underexploited?
- Alternative estimator class — What if the standard approach (e.g., linear IV) were replaced with a different class (e.g., ML, structural, Bayesian)?
- Relaxed assumption — What results depend on assumptions that could be relaxed? What happens when you relax them?
- 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:brainstormon the top 1-2 candidates
Handoff
End with: "Ideation complete. Run /workflows:brainstorm [top candidate] to develop requirements for the strongest direction."
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 4k
- Forks
- 531
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
workflows-ideate- Source
- github.com/brycewang-stanford/auto-empirical-research-skills
github.com/brycewang-stanford/auto-empirical-research-skills
Related picks
Skill · brycewang-stanford
The pick for Academic03-academic-writing
Skill · 24kchengye
The pick for Academicteach
Skill · mattpocock
More in Dev toolsimplement
Skill · mattpocock
More in Dev toolsponytail
Skill · dietrichgebert
More in Dev toolscaveman
Skill · juliusbrussee
More in Dev tools