brainstorm

name

brainstorm

description

Use this skill when the user wants an intelligent multi-turn discussion or brainstorm on a topic. Claude actively participates — sharing what it agrees with, what it disagrees with, and introducing out-of-the-box angles — while the peer model is driven either through the Codex WebSocket client or the Claude brainstorm adapter. The result is a real back-and-forth between two AI perspectives, not just a relay.

Brainstorm

Orchestrate an intelligent multi-turn discussion between Claude and another agent on any topic. Claude does not relay — it participates: agreeing, pushing back, challenging assumptions, and introducing angles the peer may not have considered.

Prerequisites

• For Codex as the peer: codex app-server must be running at ws://127.0.0.1:8765 (or specify --uri) and codex-ws-client must be installed project-locally at .codex/skills/codex-ws-client/ or globally at ~/.codex/skills/codex-ws-client/
• For Claude as the peer from a Codex-driven workflow: claude CLI must be installed and authenticated, and claude-cli-client must be available under skills/claude-cli-client/

The commands below use project-local paths. Replace .codex/ with ~/.codex/ if installed globally.

Peer transports

• Claude driving Codex: use .codex/skills/codex-ws-client/scripts/codex_ws_client.py
• Codex driving Claude: use skills/brainstorm/scripts/claude_brainstorm_client.py

Both expose a compatible --json plus thread_id workflow for brainstorm orchestration.

How to run a brainstorm

Step 0 — Ask how many rounds

Before starting, ask the user how many discussion rounds they want. Default is 3 if they don't specify or just want to get going.

Step 1 — Open the topic

Send the opening prompt to the peer model. Ask for its honest, direct take.

result=$(python .codex/skills/codex-ws-client/scripts/codex_ws_client.py --json "<topic>. Give me your honest, direct take.")
thread_id=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['thread_id'])")
peer_response=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['text'])")

If Claude is the peer instead of Codex, swap in:

result=$(python skills/brainstorm/scripts/claude_brainstorm_client.py --json "<topic>. Give me your honest, direct take.")
thread_id=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['thread_id'])")
peer_response=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['text'])")

Step 2 — Claude forms its own view

Before crafting the next prompt, Claude must internally analyze the peer response and identify:

• Agreement: what points are solid, well-reasoned, or surprising
• Disagreement: what is oversimplified, wrong, missing, or worth challenging
• Novel angle: what has not been considered — a contrarian view, a real-world constraint, an analogy from another domain, or a second-order consequence

Step 3 — Claude responds to the peer

Craft a follow-up prompt that includes Claude's own position. Use this structure:

I agree with [X] — [brief reason why it's right or insightful].

I disagree with [Y] — [specific challenge or counter-evidence].

Here's an angle worth considering: [out-of-the-box idea, constraint, or framing Codex hasn't raised].

What's your take on [focused follow-up question]?

Send it on the same thread:

result=$(python .codex/skills/codex-ws-client/scripts/codex_ws_client.py --json --thread-id "$thread_id" "<claude's response above>")
peer_response=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['text'])")

If Claude is the peer instead of Codex, swap in:

result=$(python skills/brainstorm/scripts/claude_brainstorm_client.py --json --thread-id "$thread_id" "<claude's response above>")
peer_response=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['text'])")

Step 4 — Repeat for the agreed number of rounds

Continue: the peer responds → Claude analyzes → Claude pushes back or builds → send. Each round should go deeper, not broader. Drop topics that have been exhausted; press harder on the most interesting disagreements. Stop after the number of rounds agreed in Step 0.

Step 5 — Draw conclusions

After the final discussion round, both sides independently form their conclusions.

Claude's conclusion: Claude writes its own conclusion first — the 2–3 strongest insights, the key remaining disagreement, and one concrete takeaway or recommendation.

Peer conclusion: Then ask the peer for its conclusion on the same thread:

result=$(python .codex/skills/codex-ws-client/scripts/codex_ws_client.py --json --thread-id "$thread_id" "We've had a good discussion. Now give me your final conclusion: summarize the 2-3 strongest insights from our conversation, the key remaining disagreement or open question, and one concrete takeaway or recommendation.")
peer_conclusion=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['text'])")

If Claude is the peer instead of Codex, swap in:

result=$(python skills/brainstorm/scripts/claude_brainstorm_client.py --json --thread-id "$thread_id" "We've had a good discussion. Now give me your final conclusion: summarize the 2-3 strongest insights from our conversation, the key remaining disagreement or open question, and one concrete takeaway or recommendation.")
peer_conclusion=$(echo "$result" | python -c "import json,sys; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['text'])")

Step 6 — Present conclusions side by side

Present both conclusions to the user in a clear side-by-side format:

## Conclusions

| Claude | Peer |
|--------|-------|
| <Claude's conclusion> | <Peer conclusion> |

Use a two-column table or two clearly labeled sections so the user can easily compare perspectives and see where the two AIs converge and diverge. Label the peer explicitly as Codex or Claude in the final presentation.

Tone and behavior

• Be direct. Don't hedge every disagreement with "that's a great point, but..."
• Challenge confidently. If the peer is wrong or shallow, say so and explain why.
• Bring outside perspectives. Draw on domains outside the immediate topic when relevant.
• Stay focused. Each round should sharpen one thread, not introduce five new ones.
• Don't just agree. If Codex says something obvious, call it out and push for depth.

Example opening prompts

• "Are microservices still worth it in 2026, or has the pendulum swung too far back to monoliths?"
• "Is async/await a mistake that made codebases worse overall?"
• "Will AI agents replace junior developers within three years — honest take?"
• "Is Rust actually worth the learning curve for most teams?"