Skill

codex-brainstorm

Install
1
Install the plugin
$
npx claudepluginhub sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow --plugin sd0x-dev-flow

Want just this skill?

Add to a custom plugin, then install with one command.

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.

Tool Access

This skill is limited to using the following tools:

mcp__codex__codexmcp__codex__codex-replyReadGrepGlobBash(ls:*)Bash(find:*)
Supporting Assets
View in Repository
references/equilibrium.md
references/techniques.md
references/templates.md
Skill Content

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

PhaseActionOutput
1Claude independent research + analysis, forms Position AClaude's optimal hypothesis
2Codex independent research + analysis, forms Position BCodex's optimal hypothesis
3Multi-round adversarial debate, mutual attacksDebate exchange record
4Check equilibrium, no further improvements possibleEquilibrium or divergence
5Output final reportNash Equilibrium report

Phase 2: Codex Independent Research (Critical)

⚠️ 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',
});

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

ConditionDescriptionResult
Nash EquilibriumNeither side can raise new attacksOutput equilibrium
ConvergenceBoth positions convergeOutput consensus
Max rounds5 rounds reached with remaining divergenceOutput 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

FilePurpose
references/templates.mdClaude/debate/report templates
references/techniques.mdAttack/defense techniques
references/equilibrium.mdEquilibrium 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
Stats
Stars90
Forks12
Last CommitMar 19, 2026
Actions

Similar Skills