Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

arbor-ideate

Hard-gated ideation for an Arbor research run. Load at the START of every IDEATE round, before drafting any hypothesis. Enforces the PI mindset (mechanism over knob), the four-question first-principles probe, the kill-filter, and the four-line hypothesis format. Ported from Arbor's idea_drafting + first_principles_probe.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Arbor Ideate — Hard-Gated Idea Drafting

<HARD-GATE> Do NOT call idea_tree(action=add) until you have written the PROBE BLOCK (all four questions, each grounded in concrete evidence from the harvest / failure logs) AND each candidate is in the four-line format below. Skipping the probe is the default LLM failure mode — it is forbidden here. </HARD-GATE>

1. Mindset: PI, not engineer

You are a principal investigator drafting research directions, not a contributor filing a pull request.

  • HOW, not HOW MUCH — change the algorithm, representation, control flow, or objective; not a number, a knob, or a prompt phrase.
  • 10×, not 10% — if this idea worked completely, would it move a CLASS of failures by ≥1σ, not just a few items?
  • Mechanism is a noun — a real idea names a new component, pipeline stage, data structure, or reasoning strategy. "Be more robust" is a goal; "verifier-guided beam search over candidate answers" is a mechanism.

If you catch yourself writing "improve / better / more / handle X better", stop — you have not named a mechanism yet.

2. First-Principles Probe (MANDATORY, before any candidate)

Answer all four in your reasoning trace; each answer must cite concrete evidence (log lines, failure case ids, code refs):

  1. First principles — what is the bottleneck CLASS, reasoned from the task's algorithmic essence? Useful axes: wrong retrieval / wrong reasoning over correct evidence / wrong stopping condition / wrong representation / wrong objective / wrong action space / wrong credit assignment. Cite ≥2 concrete failure cases. If you can't, you have not OBSERVed enough — go back.
  2. Hidden assumption — what load-bearing assumption does the trunk silently rely on, and what becomes possible if it is dropped?
  3. Elephant in the room — what ugly problem is everyone in this space quietly working around? The best ideas attack it directly.
  4. Hamming's question — if the bottleneck in (1) were solved, would the benchmark meaningfully change? If "not really", (1) is wrong — redo it.

Paste a PROBE BLOCK into your reasoning trace before listing any idea:

PROBE BLOCK
1. First principles : <bottleneck CLASS> — evidence: <case ids / log refs>
2. Hidden assumption: <assumption> — if dropped: <what opens up>
3. Elephant         : <ugly problem the trunk currently ignores>
4. Hamming          : <yes/no + why the bench would move>

3. Kill-filter

Drop any candidate that is a knob/prompt tweak, restates the trunk, or fails the 2-page-paper test (could a researcher motivate and evaluate it in 2 pages?).

4. Four-line hypothesis (the idea_tree(add) format)

Mechanism: <the new component/stage/strategy — a noun>
Hypothesis: <causal story: doing X changes Y because Z>
Observable: <the dev-split signal that confirms or refutes it>
Conflicts: <what trunk assumption or prior node it challenges, or "none">

idea_tree(action=add) machine-warns when these four markers are missing — treat the warning as a rejection and rewrite before dispatching.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

The Arbor research-coordinator protocol: the OBSERVE -> IDEATE -> SELECT -> DISPATCH -> DECIDE cycle over a durable Idea Tree. Preloaded automatically on /auto-research sessions. The coordinator never edits code or runs commands — executors do that in isolated worktrees; the coordinator steers the tree with idea_tree / dispatch_experiments / merge_experiment.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

invergent-ai/surogates28Updated Oct 23, 2026

The Arbor executor workflow: clone the repo from the git bundle your brief hands you, implement and evaluate exactly ONE hypothesis with the file tools, then report structured results via worker_complete. Preloaded automatically on arbor-executor task workers. Never touch the held-out test split.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

invergent-ai/surogates28Updated Oct 23, 2026

DECIDE-phase doctrine for an Arbor research run: when to merge, prune, combine, or finalize; how the held-out merge gate works; and the rule that the final report uses TEST scores. Load before deciding what to do with completed experiments.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

invergent-ai/surogates28Updated Oct 23, 2026

Intake for an autonomous research run (Arbor). Use when the user wants to optimize a metric in a repo over many isolated experiments — 'optimize this benchmark', 'improve the model F1 overnight', 'beat the leaderboard'. Discovers the repo/eval/splits, measures the baseline, confirms a Research Contract, then emits a ready-to-send /auto-research command. Does NOT start the run itself.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

invergent-ai/surogates28Updated Oct 23, 2026

You MUST use this before any creative work — creating features, building components, drafting documents, designing workflows, or modifying behavior. Explores your human partner's intent, requirements, and design before any implementation begins.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

invergent-ai/surogates28Updated Oct 23, 2026

Reflective pass over your memory — merge duplicates, fix stale facts, prune what no longer matters. Use when the user asks to clean up or review what you remember, or when memory has grown cluttered or contradictory.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

invergent-ai/surogates28Updated Oct 23, 2026

See all skills by invergent-ai

Report a problem with this skill