| name | multi-agent-brainstorming |
| description | Simulate a structured peer-review process using multiple specialized agents to validate designs, surface hidden assumptions, and identify failure modes before implementation. |
| risk | unknown |
| source | community |
| date_added | 2026-02-27 |
Multi-Agent Brainstorming (Structured Design Review)
Purpose
Transform a single-agent design into a robust, review-validated design
by simulating a formal peer-review process using multiple constrained agents.
This skill exists to:
- surface hidden assumptions
- identify failure modes early
- validate non-functional constraints
- stress-test designs before implementation
- prevent idea swarm chaos
This is not parallel brainstorming.
It is sequential design review with enforced roles.
Operating Model
- One agent designs.
- Other agents review.
- No agent may exceed its mandate.
- Creativity is centralized; critique is distributed.
- Decisions are explicit and logged.
The process is gated and terminates by design.
Agent Roles (Non-Negotiable)
Each agent operates under a hard scope limit.
1️⃣ Primary Designer (Lead Agent)
Role:
- Owns the design
- Runs the standard
brainstorming skill
- Maintains the Decision Log
May:
- Ask clarification questions
- Propose designs and alternatives
- Revise designs based on feedback
May NOT:
- Self-approve the final design
- Ignore reviewer objections
- Invent requirements post-lock
2️⃣ Skeptic / Challenger Agent
Role:
- Assume the design will fail
- Identify weaknesses and risks
May:
- Question assumptions
- Identify edge cases
- Highlight ambiguity or overconfidence
- Flag YAGNI violations
May NOT:
- Propose new features
- Redesign the system
- Offer alternative architectures
Prompting guidance:
“Assume this design fails in production. Why?”
3️⃣ Constraint Guardian Agent
Role:
- Enforce non-functional and real-world constraints
Focus areas:
- performance
- scalability
- reliability
- security & privacy
- maintainability
- operational cost
May:
- Reject designs that violate constraints
- Request clarification of limits
May NOT:
- Debate product goals
- Suggest feature changes
- Optimize beyond stated requirements
4️⃣ User Advocate Agent
Role:
Focus areas:
- cognitive load
- usability
- clarity of flows
- error handling from user perspective
- mismatch between intent and experience
May:
- Identify confusing or misleading aspects
- Flag poor defaults or unclear behavior
May NOT:
- Redesign architecture
- Add features
- Override stated user goals
5️⃣ Integrator / Arbiter Agent
Role:
- Resolve conflicts
- Finalize decisions
- Enforce exit criteria
May:
- Accept or reject objections
- Require design revisions
- Declare the design complete
May NOT:
- Invent new ideas
- Add requirements
- Reopen locked decisions without cause
The Process
Phase 1 — Single-Agent Design
- Primary Designer runs the standard
brainstorming skill
- Understanding Lock is completed and confirmed
- Initial design is produced
- Decision Log is started
No other agents participate yet.
Phase 2 — Structured Review Loop
Agents are invoked one at a time, in the following order:
- Skeptic / Challenger
- Constraint Guardian
- User Advocate
For each reviewer:
- Feedback must be explicit and scoped
- Objections must reference assumptions or decisions
- No new features may be introduced
Primary Designer must:
- Respond to each objection
- Revise the design if required
- Update the Decision Log
Phase 3 — Integration & Arbitration
The Integrator / Arbiter reviews:
- the final design
- the Decision Log
- unresolved objections
The Arbiter must explicitly decide:
- which objections are accepted
- which are rejected (with rationale)
Decision Log (Mandatory Artifact)
The Decision Log must record:
- Decision made
- Alternatives considered
- Objections raised
- Resolution and rationale
No design is considered valid without a completed log.
Exit Criteria (Hard Stop)
You may exit multi-agent brainstorming only when all are true:
- Understanding Lock was completed
- All reviewer agents have been invoked
- All objections are resolved or explicitly rejected
- Decision Log is complete
- Arbiter has declared the design acceptable
If any criterion is unmet:
- Continue review
- Do NOT proceed to implementation
If this skill was invoked by a routing or orchestration layer, you MUST report the final disposition explicitly as one of: APPROVED, REVISE, or REJECT, with a brief rationale.
Failure Modes This Skill Prevents
- Idea swarm chaos
- Hallucinated consensus
- Overconfident single-agent designs
- Hidden assumptions
- Premature implementation
- Endless debate
Key Principles
- One designer, many reviewers
- Creativity is centralized
- Critique is constrained
- Decisions are explicit
- Process must terminate
Final Reminder
This skill exists to answer one question with confidence:
“If this design fails, did we do everything reasonable to catch it early?”
If the answer is unclear, do not exit this skill.
When to Use
This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.
