Codex brainstorm

Skill fredrick84823/fstack/skills/codex-brainstorm

Adversarial brainstorming. Claude and Codex independently research then debate until Nash equilibrium. For solution exploration, feasibility analysis, exhaustive enumeration.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add fredrick84823/fstack --skill codex-brainstorm

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

4.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

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 ⚠️

mcp__codex-cli__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',
  fullAuto: false,
});

Phase 3: Adversarial Debate

Structure per round:

Claude attacks flaws in Codex's proposal
Codex rebuts or updates position
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