mirror of https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent.git synced 2026-06-23 10:42:00 +00:00

feat(optional-skills/creative-ideation): expand to v2.1.0 method library (#42402 )

The optional-skills copy was still the v1.0.0 constraint-dispatch skill
(SKILL.md + full-prompt-library.md only). This brings it up to the current
tool: a situation-routed library of 22 named ideation methods drawn from
working artists, scientists, designers, and writers.

SKILL.md becomes a 4-step router (extract PHASE/DOMAIN/SPECIFICITY signals
→ apply overrides → route phase-then-domain → resolve ambiguity), with
anti-slop operating rules and an anti-default check.

Adds:
- 22 method files under references/methods/ — oblique-strategies (Eno/Schmidt),
  oulipo, scamper, lateral-provocations (de Bono), triz (Altshuller),
  leverage-points (Meadows), pattern-languages (Alexander), compression-progress
  (Schmidhuber), analogy-and-blending, pataphysics, first-principles, polya,
  biomimicry, volume-generation, creative-discipline, premortem-and-inversion,
  defamiliarization, derive-and-mapping, affinity-diagrams, jobs-to-be-done,
  story-skeletons, chance-and-remix. Each: when/when-not, the actual
  cards/principles/operators, a procedure, a worked example, anti-slop notes.
- references/method-catalog.md (index + when-to-use), heuristics.md (extended
  decision tree), anti-slop.md (rules applied to every output), exercises.md
  (time-boxed exercises).
- full-prompt-library.md restructured into domain-affinity sections (general /
  software / physical / social / lists) so the no-direction default isn't
  developer-biased.

Frontmatter: name aligned to directory slug (creative-ideation, folding in
the fix from #18084); version 2.0.0→2.1.0; platforms field preserved.

Original wttdotm-derived constraint dispatch is kept as the default path.
Supersedes #19295 (which targeted the pre-move skills/ path).

Co-authored-by: SHL0MS <SHL0MS@users.noreply.github.com>

2026-06-19 15:40:02 -07:00

3 KiB

Raw Blame History

Compression Progress

Jürgen Schmidhuber, Formal Theory of Creativity (1990–2010). Beauty = compressibility given prior knowledge. Interestingness = the change in compressibility as you learn. A worthwhile project is one that, on completion, would compress your model of the world.

Core formula

I(D, O(t)) = B(D, O(t)) − B(D, O(t−1))

Interestingness = first derivative of beauty over time. Pure noise (no learnable pattern) and fully-known pattern (already compressed) are both boring. Beauty lives between.

When to use

Picking a research question
Selecting between candidate projects ("which would teach me the most?")
Diagnosing aesthetic dissatisfaction ("this is fine but not interesting")
Choosing what to read

Don't use when

Fast generation (this is reflective, not generative)
Group decisions where audiences differ (single-observer model)

Procedure

For picking a research question

List 5–10 things you currently cannot predict well in your domain. Be specific: not "the future of AI", but "why X 7B model trained with technique A performs worse than Y 1.3B model with technique B on benchmark Z".
For each: would understanding it compress only this fact, or re-organize a broader domain? Prefer the latter.
For each: is the answer learnable from where you are? (Not noise; not too far above your prior.)
Pick the highest learnable compression-progress potential.

For evaluating ideas

For each candidate, ask:

What would I understand differently if this were complete?
Would that understanding compress this domain or only this idea?
Is it currently learnable from where I am?

Highest answers across all three = pursue.

For aesthetic critique

Where is the work entirely predictable? (too known) Entirely unpredictable? (too random) Where does it sit in the learnable-but-not-yet-learned zone? Strong work has more of the third.

Worked example

User has three options:

A. Build a habit tracker.
B. Build a tool that explains why a git rebase --interactive produced its conflicts, by reconstructing the commit graph mid-rebase.
C. Read Lacan.

Analysis:

A: no compression progress; user already has model of habit trackers. Reject.
B: high. User doesn't currently have strong model of how rebase constructs intermediate states; building this requires learning that, and the resulting model re-organizes how the user thinks about all VCS internals.
C: real compression-progress potential, but prior is missing. Long path to get there. Worthwhile if on the prerequisite track; otherwise read Žižek/Bruce Fink first as scaffolding.

Recommend B.

Anti-slop notes

"Compression progress" as slogan ≠ doing the analysis. State the actual model gaps you'd close.
Don't claim every idea has high compression-progress. Most don't. The framework is useful because it discriminates.
Don't impose this lens on artistic work without acknowledging its limits.

Source: people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html

3 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape