Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

generating-novel-ideas产生新颖的想法

Agent Skill

generating-novel-ideas 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

720

周安装

30

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

240
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:generating-novel-ideas(产生新颖的想法)
来源仓库:https://github.com/tristanmanchester/agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/generating-novel-ideas
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/tristanmanchester/agent-skills --skill generating-novel-ideas
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/tristanmanchester/agent-skills --skill generating-novel-ideas

简介

用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 环境。

  • 可根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索定位候选结果。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围和维护状态,避免触发联网或文件读写。
  • generating-novel-ideas 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Generating Novel Ideas

This skill turns ideation into a search process, not a list-making exercise. The job is to discover a portfolio of distinct, high-potential concepts, not ten polished variations of the first plausible answer.

Critical rules

  • Fight collapse. LLMs drift towards fluent sameness. Use independent idea pools before comparing ideas.
  • Prefer concrete mechanisms over vibes. Every finalist needs a sharp twist, an entry wedge, and a cheap test.
  • Separate divergence from judgement. Do not score too early.
  • Use ordinary stakeholder or practitioner perspectives when using personas. Do not imitate celebrity innovators.
  • Research late enough to preserve breadth, but early enough to kill obvious reinventions before the final recommendation.
  • Final outputs should usually be a portfolio with spread across mechanism, audience, and risk, unless the user explicitly asks for a single winner.

Internal roles

Run these roles in sequence. Keep them separate until synthesis.

  1. Explorers widen the search space.
  2. Critics attack weak, generic, or unrealistic ideas.
  3. The synthesiser assembles the final portfolio.

Do not let the critic appear too early. Do not let the synthesiser merge everything into one blurry compromise.

Default workflow

  1. Build an opportunity model
  2. Partition the search space
  3. Generate independent idea pools
  4. Run an analogy transfer pass
  5. Resolve key contradictions
  6. Audit diversity and regenerate missing directions
  7. Critique and repair finalists
  8. Ground against reality
  9. Present a portfolio and experiments

Step 1: Build an opportunity model

Capture the minimum useful brief:

  • User goal
  • Target user or audience
  • Current status quo and what is frustrating, expensive, risky, slow, or emotionally flat
  • Hard constraints
  • Success criteria
  • Available assets, unfair advantages, channels, or capabilities
  • Hidden tensions and trade-offs
  • What to avoid

When the prompt is sparse, infer reasonable assumptions and state them briefly.

When the user brings an existing idea, do not start by polishing it directly. First extract the underlying job and generate at least two alternative mechanisms.

Step 2: Partition the search space

Choose 3 to 5 independent pools. Pools must differ on at least two axes.

Good axes include:

  • stakeholder viewpoint or ordinary persona
  • mechanism or value type
  • user moment or time horizon
  • adoption path or channel
  • ambition level
  • trust model or ownership model

Examples of useful pool labels:

  • frontline operator, zero new habit
  • approver or buyer, proof and risk reduction
  • novice user, immediate win
  • partner or embedded channel
  • bold long-shot system shift

Rules:

  • Generate each pool as if it has not seen the others.
  • Do not compare, deduplicate, or score until all pools are finished.
  • Produce 2 to 4 ideas per pool.
  • Keep raw ideas short at first: name, one-line concept, primary user, non-obvious move.

This blind partitioning is the main defence against idea collapse.

Step 3: Generate the pools

Inside each pool:

  1. Write 2 to 3 fertile reframing questions.
  2. Choose two lenses from references/LENSES.md.
  3. Generate the first pass.
  4. Do a second internal pass and add at least one idea clearly outside the dominant pattern.

Always include one practical lens and one novelty lens.

If the task is complex, breadth comes before depth. Add new mechanism families before expanding any single family.

Step 4: Run an analogy transfer pass

Do not borrow surface style. Borrow mechanism.

  1. Abstract the problem into a mechanism, tension, or pattern.
  2. Pick 2 to 4 distant domains.
  3. Extract what makes those domains work.
  4. Map the mechanism back into the problem.
  5. Adapt it for the actual constraints and adoption path.

Every strong final set should contain at least one idea born from far analogy, unless the user explicitly wants only safe, incremental options.

For source domains and transfer patterns, use references/LENSES.md.

Step 5: Resolve key contradictions

Write 1 to 3 contradictions at the heart of the task, such as:

  • more trust with less friction
  • more customisation with less complexity
  • more quality with less expert labour
  • faster decision-making with lower risk
  • more compliance with less manual work

Generate ideas that resolve the contradiction through separation, defaults, staging, guarantees, modularity, reversible commitment, human review only at critical moments, or new ownership boundaries.

For technical, scientific, or engineering prompts, use the structured contradiction method in references/LENSES.md.

Step 6: Audit diversity

Before refinement, check for hidden sameness.

Look for:

  • near-duplicates hidden by new wording
  • too many ideas using the same mechanism
  • too many aimed at the same user moment
  • repeated crutches such as AI assistant, dashboard, marketplace, community, gamification, personalisation, subscription, or platform
  • no spread across pragmatic wedge, strategic differentiator, and bold bet

If the set is clustered, regenerate only the missing directions.

When scripts can run and the set is large, optionally use scripts/diversity_audit.py before convergence.

Step 7: Critique and repair finalists

Choose 3 to 6 finalists. For each one, write:

  • strongest reason it could work
  • smartest sceptic objection
  • repair if possible
  • kill it if repair makes it generic or unrealistic

Every finalist card should contain:

  • Name
  • One-sentence pitch
  • Who it is for
  • Hidden insight or tension
  • Imported mechanism or pattern
  • Why it is not just the obvious solution
  • Entry wedge
  • Main risk
  • Cheapest disconfirming test

Step 8: Ground against reality

If current market, technical, cultural, or regulatory reality matters and research is available:

  • check whether the idea is already common
  • identify incumbents or substitutes
  • pressure-test feasibility and compliance
  • sharpen the why-now and distribution story
  • trim false differentiation claims

Do not research so early that the search space collapses into existing categories.

Step 9: Present the result

Default response structure:

  1. Working brief and assumptions
  2. Opportunity tensions
  3. Search partitions used
  4. Raw idea families
  5. Final portfolio
  6. Recommended next move

Use a portfolio, not just a ranking:

  • one pragmatic wedge
  • one strategic differentiator
  • one bold bet

If the user asks for a single winner, still mention the strongest runner-up and the specific reason it lost.

Hard quality bar

No finalist is complete without:

  • a clear non-obvious move
  • a believable first user and first context
  • a path to adoption or distribution
  • a cheap test that could disconfirm it
  • an explicit line in this format:

This is not just X. The new move is Y.

If Y is vague, decorative, or generic, the concept is not ready.

For the detailed rubric, use references/EVALUATION.md.

Anti-generic rules

  • Do not produce a flat list of features around one core mechanism and call it diversity.
  • Do not hide weak ideas behind fluent prose.
  • Do not use AI, agent, community, marketplace, dashboard, platform, personalisation, or gamification as decoration.
  • Do not let naming replace concept work.
  • Do not overvalue novelty with no adoption path.
  • Do not overvalue feasibility when the idea is indistinguishable from existing practice.
  • Prefer specific trade-offs to magical wins on every dimension.

Mode switching

For domain-specific workflows, use references/MODES.md.

Common modes:

  • startup or product opportunity
  • research hypothesis or scientific idea
  • campaign, content, or creative concept
  • naming and verbal concept development
  • process, service, or operations redesign

Common failure modes

If the outputs feel generic:

  • widen the partitions
  • add a stronger far-analogy pass
  • write sharper contradictions
  • regenerate only missing mechanism families

If the outputs feel clever but unusable:

  • reduce ambition by one step
  • sharpen the first user and first context
  • attach a cheaper test and a narrower wedge

If the outputs all sound similar:

  • stop scoring
  • restart with blind pools from new viewpoints
  • avoid celebrity personas and vague mission statements

Examples

Example 1

User says: I need fresh B2B SaaS ideas for compliance teams.

Actions:

  1. Build an opportunity model around buyers, blockers, trust, procurement, and audit.
  2. Partition by operator, approver, audit trail, and partner channel.
  3. Generate blind pools, then run analogy and contradiction passes.
  4. Return a portfolio with wedge, differentiator, bold bet, and tests.

Example 2

User says: This startup idea feels generic. Make it genuinely better.

Actions:

  1. Extract the underlying job from the current idea.
  2. Generate at least two alternative mechanisms before improving the original.
  3. Keep only ideas with sharper wedges and clearer tests.

Example 3

User says: Help me come up with novel research directions in battery diagnostics.

Actions:

  1. Build tensions, constraints, missing capabilities, and evidence limits.
  2. Use scientific mode from references/MODES.md.
  3. Add structured contradiction solving and feasibility pressure-testing.

For trigger tests and maintenance checks, use references/VALIDATION.md.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

37.85%
按下载量换算91

Claude

31.91%
按下载量换算77

Cursor

18.99%
按下载量换算46

Gemini CLI

8.64%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills