/codex-brainstorm

name: codex-brainstorm
description: "Adversarial brainstorming via Claude+Codex debate. Use when: exploring solutions, feasibility analysis, exhaustive enumeration. Not for: implementation (use feature-dev), architecture only (use codex-architect). Output: Nash equilibrium consensus + action items."
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(ls:*), Bash(find:*), Bash(node:*), Write

Codex Brainstorm Skill

Trigger

• Keywords: brainstorm, exhaust possibilities, explore solutions, deep discussion, feasibility analysis, solution exploration, Nash equilibrium

When NOT to Use

• Simple technical Q&A (answer directly)
• Already have a clear solution (implement directly)
• Only need code review (use `/codex-review`)

Core Principle

⚠️ Independent Research → Adversarial Debate → Nash Equilibrium ⚠️

Nash Equilibrium = Neither party can unilaterally change strategy to achieve a better outcome

Workflow

| Phase | Action | Output | | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------- | | 1 | **Claude independent research** + analysis, forms Position A | Claude's optimal hypothesis | | 2 | **Codex independent research** + analysis, forms Position B | Codex's optimal hypothesis | | 3 | Multi-round adversarial debate, mutual attacks | Debate exchange record | | 4 | Check equilibrium, no further improvements possible | Equilibrium or divergence | | 5 | Output final report | Nash Equilibrium report |

Phase 2: Codex Independent Research (Critical)

**⚠️ Must let Codex research independently; do NOT feed Claude's analysis results ⚠️**

Dispatch this body per `@skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md` § Start — a **fresh** thread for Phase 2. The transport pins the sandbox and the approval policy, so nothing is chosen here. **Save the returned `threadId`**; the Phase 3 debate rounds continue that same thread per its § Resume (`references/techniques.md`). Bind every placeholder before writing `prompt.md` — nothing evaluates an expression in a body-only template.

You are a senior architect. Conduct an **independent analysis** of the following topic.

Topic

${TOPIC}

Constraints

${CONSTRAINTS}

⚠️ Important: You must research independently ⚠️

Before forming conclusions, you **must** first: 1. Discover the directory structure: `ls` at the repository root, then list the directories it actually shows — do not assume a `src/` or `test/unit/` layout; many repositories, this one included, have neither 2. Search related code: `grep -rn "keyword" . -l | head -10` — rooted at the repository, or at a directory the discovery step above actually surfaced; never at an assumed `src/` 3. Read relevant files to confirm existing implementations

Output Requirements

1. Research summary (related modules, existing patterns) 2. Your position + supporting arguments 3. Potential risks

Phase 3: Adversarial Debate

Structure per round:

1. Claude attacks flaws in Codex's proposal 2. Codex rebuts or updates position 3. Equilibrium check: Can either side raise new attacks?

Termination Conditions

| Condition | Description | Result | | ----------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------- | | Nash Equilibrium | Neither side can raise new attacks | Output equilibrium | | Convergence | Both positions converge | Output consensus | | Max rounds | 5 rounds reached with remaining divergence | Output divergence report |

Verification

• [ ] Claude formed an independent position (not following Codex)
• [ ] Codex performed code research (not speculating)
• [ ] At least 3 rounds of adversarial debate
• [ ] Each round has clear attack/defense records
• [ ] Final report indicates equilibrium status

References

| File | Purpose | | ---------------- | ------------------------------ | | `references/templates.md` | Claude/debate/report templates | | `references/techniques.md` | Attack/defense techniques | | `references/equilibrium.md` | Equilibrium determination flow |

Example

Input: What implementation approaches are available for this requirement?

Phase 1: Claude independent research → Position A (Solution X is optimal)
Phase 2: Codex independent research → Position B (Solution Y is optimal)
Phase 3: Adversarial debate
  - R1: Claude attacks Y's scalability / Codex attacks X's complexity
  - R2: Claude rebuts / Codex concedes and updates position
  - R3: Both converge to Solution Z, no further attacks → Equilibrium
Phase 4: Output Nash Equilibrium = Solution Z