From sd0x-dev-flow
Conducts adversarial debates between Claude and Codex for exploring solutions, feasibility analysis, and exhaustive option enumeration. Outputs Nash equilibrium consensus plus action items.
npx claudepluginhub sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow --plugin sd0x-dev-flowThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
- Keywords: brainstorm, exhaust possibilities, explore solutions, deep discussion, feasibility analysis, solution exploration, Nash equilibrium
Generates multiple solutions, adversarially critiques weaknesses and failure modes, develops fixes, validates them, and consolidates ranked recommendations for complex technical problems.
Conducts feasibility analysis from first principles: decomposes requirements, analyzes constraints, researches code, explores solutions, discusses with codex, and outputs quantitative comparisons with recommendations. Use before tech specs, for comparisons or risk assessment.
Spawns thesis/antithesis agents to debate and stress-test ideas like architecture choices, synthesizes positions, and verifies claims against codebase via searches.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
/codex-review)⚠️ Independent Research → Adversarial Debate → Nash Equilibrium ⚠️
Nash Equilibrium = Neither party can unilaterally change strategy to achieve a better outcome
| 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 |
⚠️ Must let Codex research independently; do NOT feed Claude's analysis results ⚠️
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',
});
Structure per round:
| 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 |
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
references/templates.md | Claude/debate/report templates |
references/techniques.md | Attack/defense techniques |
references/equilibrium.md | Equilibrium determination flow |
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