Initial commit: Hermes Agent Skills collection
This commit is contained in:
Debian
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: ideate
|
||||
description: "Generate, develop, and evaluate ideas for features, products, or solutions. Use when the user wants to explore possibilities, generate options, or find creative directions — not when they already have a specific plan."
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
author: Hermes Agent (merged from Every Inc compound-engineering ce-ideate)
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
hermes:
|
||||
tags: [ideation, creativity, exploration, brainstorming, compound-engineering]
|
||||
related_skills: [brainstorming, tech-pov, plan, compound-learning]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Ideate
|
||||
|
||||
Generate, develop, and evaluate ideas. Move from "we need ideas" to a ranked shortlist with rationale — grounded in project context, not generic brainstorming.
|
||||
|
||||
**Core principle:** Ideas are cheap; evaluated ideas grounded in real context are valuable. The output is not a list of ideas — it's a ranked, contextualized shortlist with a clear recommendation.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- "What should we build next?"
|
||||
- "Give me ideas for improving X"
|
||||
- "How could we approach Y?"
|
||||
- "What features would make sense for Z?"
|
||||
- Open-ended exploration before committing to a specific plan
|
||||
|
||||
**Not for:** bounded technology decisions (use `tech-pov`), dialog-driven design refinement (use `brainstorming`), or implementation planning (use `plan`).
|
||||
|
||||
## The Process
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Frame the Question
|
||||
|
||||
Clarify what kind of ideas are needed:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Domain** — what area? (product features, DX improvements, perf, UX, architecture)
|
||||
2. **Constraints** — budget, timeline, team size, tech stack, must-not-break constraints
|
||||
3. **Appetite** — incremental improvements vs bold bets vs moonshots
|
||||
4. **Success criterion** — how will we know a good idea when we see it?
|
||||
|
||||
If the user's framing is vague, ask ONE clarifying question. Don't over-interview.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Ground in Context
|
||||
|
||||
Before generating ideas, understand the landscape:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
# What does the project already have?
|
||||
search_files("*", target="files", path="src/")
|
||||
|
||||
# Any prior decisions or learnings?
|
||||
search_files("keyword", path="docs/solutions/")
|
||||
|
||||
# Recent git activity — what's being worked on?
|
||||
terminal("git log --oneline -20")
|
||||
|
||||
# Existing strategy or roadmap?
|
||||
read_file("STRATEGY.md") # if exists
|
||||
read_file("ROADMAP.md") # if exists
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For broader context, dispatch a research scout:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
delegate_task(
|
||||
goal="Research the current state of [domain]: what competitors do, what users expect, what's emerging. Return 5-10 key insights relevant to ideation.",
|
||||
context="Ideating for [project]. Domain: [area].",
|
||||
toolsets=["web"]
|
||||
)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Generate Ideas
|
||||
|
||||
Use multiple generation strategies — different strategies find different ideas:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Strategy 1: First Principles
|
||||
Start from the core problem. What would the ideal solution look like with no constraints? Then add constraints back.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Strategy 2: Analogy
|
||||
What solves similar problems in other domains? (other products, nature, games, manufacturing)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Strategy 3: Inversion
|
||||
Instead of "what should we add?", ask "what should we remove?" Sometimes the best idea is killing a feature.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Strategy 4: Constraint Removal
|
||||
Pick one constraint (budget, tech, timeline) and imagine it's gone. What becomes possible? Can we approximate that within constraints?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Strategy 5: User Pain Points
|
||||
Where do users struggle? What do they complain about? What workarounds do they use?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Strategy 6: Compound Leverage
|
||||
What existing asset, if extended slightly, unlocks disproportionate value? (existing data, user base, infrastructure, brand)
|
||||
|
||||
Generate 10-20 raw ideas. Don't filter yet — quantity first.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Develop Promising Ideas
|
||||
|
||||
Select the top 6-8 raw ideas. For each, develop a one-paragraph pitch:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
### Idea: [Name]
|
||||
**What:** One sentence describing the idea
|
||||
**Who benefits:** Target user/stakeholder
|
||||
**How:** Rough approach (not detailed plan)
|
||||
**Why now:** What makes this timely?
|
||||
**Risk:** What could go wrong?
|
||||
**Effort:** S/M/L rough estimate
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 5: Evaluate and Rank
|
||||
|
||||
Score each developed idea against consistent criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
| Criterion | Weight | Scoring Guide |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Impact** | 30% | How much value does this create? (user satisfaction, revenue, efficiency) |
|
||||
| **Feasibility** | 25% | Can we actually build this with current resources/constraints? |
|
||||
| **Strategic fit** | 20% | Does this align with the project's direction and strengths? |
|
||||
| **Novelty** | 10% | Is this differentiated or table stakes? |
|
||||
| **Compound potential** | 15% | Does this unlock future opportunities or leverage existing assets? |
|
||||
|
||||
Score each 1-5 per criterion. Calculate weighted score.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 6: Present Shortlist
|
||||
|
||||
Present the top 3-5 ideas as a ranked table:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Idea Shortlist
|
||||
|
||||
| Rank | Idea | Score | Impact | Effort | Why |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 1 | [Name] | 4.2/5 | High | M | [one-line rationale] |
|
||||
| 2 | [Name] | 3.9/5 | High | L | [one-line rationale] |
|
||||
| 3 | [Name] | 3.7/5 | Medium | S | [one-line rationale] |
|
||||
|
||||
### Top Pick: [Name]
|
||||
[2-3 paragraph explanation of why this is the recommendation]
|
||||
|
||||
### Runner-ups
|
||||
[Brief notes on why #2 and #3 didn't win]
|
||||
|
||||
### Parking Lot
|
||||
[Ideas that didn't make the cut but worth revisiting]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 7: Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
Offer to advance the top pick:
|
||||
- **Refine** → `brainstorming` for design dialog
|
||||
- **Decide** → `tech-pov` if it involves a technology choice
|
||||
- **Plan** → `plan` / `writing-plans` for implementation planning
|
||||
- **Capture** → `compound-learning` if a strategic insight emerged
|
||||
|
||||
## Modes
|
||||
|
||||
### Interactive (default)
|
||||
Walk through phases with user check-ins at Phase 3 (idea dump) and Phase 6 (shortlist).
|
||||
|
||||
### Headless
|
||||
Run all phases without interruption. Return the ranked shortlist as structured output.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
- **Don't skip grounding** — ideas generated without project context are generic and useless
|
||||
- **Don't filter during generation** — kill premature criticism; filter in Phase 5
|
||||
- **Don't present unranked lists** — the value is in the evaluation, not the brainstorm
|
||||
- **Don't confuse effort with impact** — a small idea with high impact beats a big idea with moderate impact
|
||||
- **Don't ignore compound potential** — ideas that unlock future options are systematically undervalued
|
||||
- **Don't over-generate** — 20 raw ideas is plenty; 50 is procrastination
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with Other Skills
|
||||
|
||||
- **brainstorming** — ideate generates options, brainstorming refines one chosen direction
|
||||
- **tech-pov** — ideate explores possibilities, tech-pov gives a verdict on a specific choice
|
||||
- **plan** — receives the chosen idea and scopes implementation
|
||||
- **compound-learning** — grounds ideation in prior learnings; captures strategic insights
|
||||
- **doc-review** — can review the idea shortlist before commitment
|
||||
|
||||
## Hermes Agent Integration
|
||||
|
||||
- `search_files` — ground in project context
|
||||
- `read_file` — read strategy/roadmap/learnings
|
||||
- `terminal` — git log, project analysis
|
||||
- `delegate_task` — research scouts, parallel idea development
|
||||
- Web tools — competitive research, trend analysis
|
||||
- `write_file` — save idea shortlist for reference
|
||||
|
||||
## Remember
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Ground before generating
|
||||
Quantity first, quality in evaluation
|
||||
Score against consistent criteria
|
||||
Lead with the recommendation, not the list
|
||||
Ideas are cheap; evaluated ideas grounded in context are valuable
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user