Brainstorm

Skill momentmaker/kaijutsu/skills/core/brainstorm

Write your dev workflow once. Run it on any LLM. Open agent skills + multi-model swarm + a local findings store that learns which models you can trust.

Install

npx -y skills add momentmaker/kaijutsu --skill 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

3 stars3 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.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Multi-agent ideation against a free-form prompt. Wraps `jutsu swarm brainstorm "<prompt>"` to run claude / codex / antigravity in parallel with three different angles (claude=long-horizon framing, codex=code-pattern grounding, antigravity=cross-domain analogy), synthesizes into a ranked list of approaches with tradeoffs. Use when the user says "brainstorm", "ideas for", "how should we approach", "options for", or invokes /brainstorm. Designed to feed into `decide` (for ADR capture of the picked option) or `refactor-plan` (for execution of the picked option).

SKILL.md

5.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

brainstorm

Three reviewers walk into a question. Each comes back with a different list. The synthesizer ranks them.

This skill wraps jutsu swarm brainstorm. Free-form prompt input, ranked-list output. Use it before decide (you don't know what to record yet) or before refactor-plan (you don't know which approach to plan against yet).

How agents collaborate

Lens	Agent	Looks for
Long-horizon framing	claude	Ideal end-state, ambition gap, bold-but-defensible moves
Code-pattern grounding	codex	Existing patterns, concrete libraries, real-world failure modes
Cross-domain analogy	antigravity	Adjacent fields, prior art, RFC/paper precedents

Severity vocab differs from pr-review/doc-review. Brainstorm options use:

recommended — high-confidence "this is what I'd do"
alternative — also good, different tradeoff profile
risky — works but with caveats
speculative — wild idea worth recording, not yet defensible

The synthesizer ranks options across reviewers, groups similar approaches, and surfaces "cross-cuts" — themes that appeared in multiple options.

Layout (rich)

brainstorm/
├── SKILL.md
├── skill.yaml
├── scripts/
│   └── run.sh
├── prompts/
│   ├── claude.md       long-horizon lens
│   ├── codex.md        code-pattern lens
│   ├── antigravity.md       cross-domain lens
│   ├── synthesizer.md  ranked-list assembler
│   └── debate.md       Pass-2 critique template
└── references/
    ├── lens-design.md       why each lens is what it is
    └── chaining.md          how brainstorm composes with decide / refactor-plan

First-run consent

Brainstorm sends the user prompt to remote model providers. Per-repo consent required before the first run:

jutsu swarm brainstorm --grant-consent

This writes allow-multi-model: true to .kaijutsu/brainstorm.yaml. Subsequent runs work non-interactively.

When to invoke

# Direct
jutsu swarm brainstorm "how do I rate-limit my API endpoints?"

# Via skill wrapper
~/.claude/skills/brainstorm/scripts/run.sh "what's the right cache invalidation strategy?"

# High-stakes question — use --full for a debate round
jutsu swarm brainstorm "should we migrate from Postgres to CockroachDB?" --full --strict

# Iterate cheap on the synth prompt
jutsu swarm brainstorm --replay <key>

Reading the output

Same structure as pr-review/doc-review but the disagreement table shows each reviewer's options as 1/N rows by design (different lenses produce different options — that's the point). The synthesis sections matter most:

## Recommended options
- **Redis sliding-window** (proposed by claude, codex) — proven pattern, ...
- **Token bucket per-API-key** (codex) — battle-tested, library exists ...

## Alternatives worth considering
- **CRDT-based limiter** (antigravity, speculative→alternative after debate) — ...

## Speculative
- **Probabilistic admission control** (antigravity) — paper-tier idea, ...

## Cross-cuts
- All three reviewers mentioned graceful degradation under burst.
- Both claude + codex emphasized the importance of per-key limits.

The "Cross-cuts" section is the highest-leverage signal — themes that emerged from multiple lenses are usually worth designing for, even if no single option won.

Composes

This skill chains naturally:

brainstorm → pick a recommended option
decide → record the choice as an ADR (Step 5 multi-agent review on the decision record uses doc-review, not brainstorm)
refactor-plan (Stage 6) OR spec-driven-development → execute the chosen option

See references/chaining.md for example workflows.

Hard rules

Never confuse with doc-review. brainstorm produces NEW options. doc-review reviews EXISTING markdown. Different inputs, different outputs.
Don't run brainstorm to "review" something. That's doc-review's job.
Cite reviewer in synthesis. When picking an option, note which lens produced it — useful when you later want to re-examine the assumption.

When NOT to use

You already know the answer — skip to decide or implementation.
Question requires tools (running queries, reading specific files) — brainstorm is prompt-only.
Question is "review my X" — that's doc-review or pr-review.

Cost

Default --max-cost $1.00. With 3 agents in --quick mode, typical brainstorm runs ~$0.05–0.20. --full (with debate) doubles that. --strict adds another synthesis call.