# Diverge

> Before implementing, generate 3-5 conceptually distinct approaches labeled by creativity dimension (Novel, Surprising, Diverse, Conventional), then hold for selection. Brainstorm-then-select to resist defaulting to the most obvious solution.

- Skill: `brycewang-stanford/diverge` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add brycewang-stanford/diverge`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford/diverge/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: brycewang-stanford (https://skillmd.com/u/brycewang-stanford)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/brycewang-stanford/diverge

---


# Diverge

Interrupt the default path of jumping to the most probable — and least creative — solution.

## Heritage and scope

This is an original Open Science Skills workflow grounded in **Creative Preference Optimization** (Ismayilzada et al., 2025; background in [`reference/creative-preference-optimization.md`](reference/creative-preference-optimization.md)). Standard preference alignment (RLHF/DPO) optimizes for the most human-expected output, which is by construction the least surprising one. The paper's most accessible remedy — its own "brainstorm-then-select" baseline — needs no fine-tuning: force divergence before convergence by generating several conceptually distinct approaches, requiring that at least one is surprising and one is novel, and deferring quality and implementation until after selection.

Use `diverge` for creative, architectural, or analytical work where more than one non-obvious solution exists. To delegate the brainstorm to a second model family, use the sibling `diverge-codex`.

## When to invoke

Use `/diverge <task>` when:
- multiple non-obvious implementations exist
- you want to avoid the conventional approach
- the task is creative, architectural, or analytical, not purely mechanical

Do not use for rote tasks with one correct answer (e.g., fix this syntax error).

## Behavior

Given `$ARGUMENTS`:

### Step 1 — Clarify if needed

If the task is ambiguous about what "good" looks like, ask **one** focused question before proceeding. Skip this if the goal is clear. Do not ask about implementation details.

### Step 2 — Generate approaches

Produce **3–5 approaches** that are genuinely conceptually distinct. Differences must be in underlying mechanism, not surface vocabulary.

Label each with its primary creativity dimension:

- **[Novel]** — semantically far from the conventional solution; different conceptual basis
- **[Surprising]** — violates the obvious assumption about how this should work; would not be the first answer
- **[Diverse]** — maximally different from the other approaches in this list
- **[Conventional]** — the expected path, included as a reference point

For each approach provide:
1. Core mechanism — one sentence naming the key insight
2. How it works — two to three sentences on the mechanism and what makes it distinct
3. Main tradeoff — one sentence

### Step 3 — Hold

Do not implement. Present all approaches, then ask:

> "Which approach should I pursue? Or should I synthesize elements from multiple?"

## Constraints

- At least one approach must be **[Surprising]**
- At least one must be **[Novel]**
- Approaches must not merely restate each other with different vocabulary
- Quality matters second in this phase — novelty and surprise come first
- Do not use markdown headers per approach — keep the list scannable

## After selection

Implement the selected approach directly. If the user asks to synthesize, identify which elements are mechanically compatible and propose a brief hybrid plan before implementing.