--- name: codex-brainstorm description: Adversarial brainstorming. Claude and Codex independently research then debate until Nash equilibrium. For solution exploration, feasibility analysis, exhaustive enumeration. allowed-tools: mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, Read, Grep, Glob --- # 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 ⚠️** ```typescript mcp__codex__codex({ prompt: `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. Run \`ls src/\` to understand the directory structure 2. Search related code: \`grep -r "keyword" src/ --include="*.ts" -l | head -10\` 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`, sandbox: 'read-only', 'approval-policy': 'on-failure', }); ``` ### 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 | | ---------------- | ------------------------------ | | `templates.md` | Claude/debate/report templates | | `techniques.md` | Attack/defense techniques | | `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 ```