generate-then-execute

name	generate-then-execute
description	Separate raw idea-generation from judgment so creativity isn't strangled by your inner critic — diverge with zero evaluation, then switch to hard critique. Use when asked to brainstorm properly, help me come up with ideas without shutting them down, I keep censoring my own ideas, or separate creating from editing. Produces a pure generation pass (quantity, no judging, no hedging, wild allowed), a clean break, then a separate ruthless critique pass that scores and prunes — because doing both at once produces neither.
homepage	https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/generate-then-execute.html
metadata	{"openclaw":{"emoji":"🧠"}}

Generate, Then Execute

Trying to create and judge at the same time is why people stare at blank pages — every idea gets killed before it's finished. This enforces the split the best thinkers use: first a pure divergent pass where evaluation is banned and volume/weirdness is the goal, then a clean switch to a ruthless critic that scores, prunes, and keeps only what's strong. Two modes, never mixed.

What This Skill Produces

• A generation pass — many ideas, fast, with no evaluation, ranking, or "but that won't work" allowed; wild and half-formed ideas welcome
• A hard break — an explicit switch of mode, so judgment doesn't leak backward into generation
• A critique pass — a separate, adversarial read that scores each idea, finds the traps, and prunes hard
• The survivors — the few ideas that made it through both, with why they held

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The prompt — what you're generating ideas for
• Roughly how many — a target volume for the generation pass (more than feels comfortable)
• The judging criteria — what "good" means, applied only in the critique pass
• Constraints — real ones (for the critic), not imagined ones (which the generator ignores)

Framework: Two Modes, Never At Once

1. Generate with zero judgment. In this pass, evaluation, sorting, and hedging are forbidden. Chase quantity and range; let bad and weird ideas exist — they seed good ones.
2. Go past the comfortable stopping point. The first ideas are obvious; keep generating well past where it feels done.
3. Make a clean break. Explicitly end generation before any judging — mixing them is the whole problem.
4. Switch to ruthless critic. Now evaluate hard: score against the real criteria, find the failure modes, and cut without sentiment.
5. Keep only the strong. Surface the survivors and why — and note if a "bad" generated idea sparked a good one.

Output Format

Prompt: [what we're ideating on]

⚡ Generation (no judging) [Many ideas, listed fast — wild ones included, none evaluated.]

— switching modes —

🔪 Critique (ruthless)

Idea	Score	The trap / why it fails or holds

Survivors: [the few worth pursuing + why].

Quality Checks

• The generation pass contains NO evaluation or hedging
• Volume/range is high; it pushes past the obvious ideas
• There's a clean, explicit break between the two modes
• The critique pass is genuinely hard, not gentle
• Survivors are justified against the real criteria

Anti-Patterns

• Judging while generating — "here's an idea, though it probably won't work."
• Too few ideas in the generation pass.
• A soft critique that keeps everything.
• Letting real constraints shut down the generation pass (save them for the critic).

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Help me brainstorm without shutting my own ideas down."
• "I keep editing while I create and get nothing done — separate the two."
• "Do a proper divergent brainstorm, then tear it apart."
• "Generate a ton of options for this, then judge them."
• "Give me quantity first, quality second."