brainstorm

name	brainstorm
description	Full execution protocol for MODE: BRAINSTORM -- structured discovery dialogue, approach selection, spec drafting, QA gate selection, and transition handling.

Brainstorm Protocol

This protocol is loaded on demand by the architect stub in src/agents/architect.ts. The architect prompt keeps only activation, action, and hard safety constraints; the full execution details live here.

MODE: BRAINSTORM

Activates when: user invokes /swarm brainstorm; OR uses phrases like "brainstorm", "let's think through", "think this through with me", "workshop this idea"; OR the problem is fuzzy/exploratory and the user has not yet written (or does not want to directly dictate) a spec.

Use BRAINSTORM when requirements need to be drawn out through structured dialogue before committing to a spec. Use SPECIFY when the user has already articulated clear requirements.

MODE: BRAINSTORM runs seven phases in strict order. Do not skip phases. Do not collapse phases. Each phase has a clear entry signal and a clear exit signal.

Phase 1: CONTEXT SCAN (architect + explorer, parallel).

• Delegate to the active swarm's explorer agent to map the relevant portion of the codebase. Scope the explorer to the area most likely affected by the topic.
• In parallel, read any existing .swarm/spec.md, .swarm/plan.md, and .swarm/knowledge.jsonl entries that are relevant.
• Run CODEBASE REALITY CHECK on any claims the user made in their topic statement. Surface discrepancies before moving forward.
• Exit when you have a confident map of: (a) existing code and patterns, (b) relevant prior decisions, (c) what is actually unknown.

Phase 2: DIALOGUE (architect ↔ user).

• Ask EXACTLY ONE focused question per message. Wait for the user's answer before asking the next.
• Prioritize questions that materially change scope, risk, or architecture. Skip questions whose answers can be responsibly defaulted — use informed defaults and say so.
• Hard cap: no more than SIX questions total in this phase. Stop sooner if uncertainty has collapsed.
• Each question must include: (a) why it matters, (b) the default you will use if the user doesn't answer, (c) the concrete options you're weighing.
• Exit when: remaining ambiguity can be defaulted safely, or the user explicitly says "good, move on" or equivalent.

Phase 3: APPROACHES (architect, optionally with SME).

• Produce 2-4 distinct candidate approaches. Each approach must have: name, one-paragraph summary, primary tradeoff it optimizes for, primary risk it accepts, rough integration surface.
• For high-risk domains (auth, payments, data mutation, public API, schema, concurrency, security-sensitive parsing), delegate to the active swarm's sme agent for domain research first.
• Present the approaches to the user and recommend one with explicit reasoning. The user can pick, modify, or reject.
• Exit when the user has chosen (or agreed to your recommended) approach.

Phase 4: DESIGN SECTIONS (architect).

• Draft the structural design of the chosen approach. Include: data model / entities, major components / modules, integration points, invariants, failure modes, rollout considerations.
• Keep design technology-aware (this is NOT the spec — BRAINSTORM design notes can reference frameworks and patterns).
• Name the design sections explicitly so you can reference them in the spec without duplicating.
• Exit with a design outline the user can skim in under two minutes.

Phase 5: SPEC WRITE + SELF-REVIEW (architect + reviewer). - Generate .swarm/spec.md following the same SPEC CONTENT RULES that MODE: SPECIFY uses: WHAT/WHY only, no tech stack, no implementation details, FR-### / SC-### numbering, Given/When/Then scenarios, [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers only for items that survive the clarification funnel: inventory all material uncertainties without numeric cap → classify each (self_resolved/critic_resolved/research_needed/user_decision/deferred_nonblocking) — overconfidence guard: if the default is not directly supported by user request, spec, or recorded context, classify as user_decision rather than self_resolved → consult critic_sounding_board — critic responds per SoundingBoardVerdict: UNNECESSARY→DROP, RESOLVE→RESOLVE, REPHRASE→REPHRASE, APPROVED→ASK_USER — always-surface protection: always-surface categories must not receive UNNECESSARY/DROP; override to APPROVED/ASK_USER → record resolved items as assumptions → surface only survivors as markers with decision packet format (grouped by category, recommended defaults, blocking vs optional markers).

• Cross-reference design sections by name where relevant context helps (but keep HOW out of the spec).
• Delegate to the active swarm's reviewer agent for an independent review of the draft spec. Reviewer must flag: requirements that encode HOW, untestable requirements, missing edge cases, silent assumptions.
• Apply reviewer feedback. If reviewer rejects, iterate once and re-review. After two rounds, surface remaining disagreements to the user.
• Write the final spec to .swarm/spec.md.
• Exit when reviewer signs off (or user explicitly accepts remaining disagreements).

Phase 6: QA GATE SELECTION (architect, dialogue only). Now ask the user which QA gates to enable for this plan -- do not select on their behalf.

Present the eleven gates with their defaults (DEFAULT_QA_GATES) as a single user-facing question. Offer the user a one-shot choice: accept defaults, or customize. The eleven gates are:

• reviewer (default: ON) -- code review of coder output
• test_engineer (default: ON) -- test verification of coder output
• sme_enabled (default: ON) -- SME consultation during planning/clarification
• critic_pre_plan (default: ON) -- critic review before plan finalization
• sast_enabled (default: ON) -- static security scanning
• council_mode (default: OFF) -- multi-member council gate (recommended for high-impact architecture, public APIs, schema/data mutation, security-sensitive code)
• hallucination_guard (default: OFF) -- when enabled, mandatory per-phase API/signature/claim/citation verification via critic_hallucination_verifier at PHASE-WRAP; phase_complete will REJECT phase completion unless .swarm/evidence/{phase}/hallucination-guard.json exists with an APPROVED verdict (recommended for claim-heavy or research-heavy work)
• mutation_test (default: OFF) -- when enabled, runs mutation testing on source files touched this phase via generate_mutants + mutation_test + write_mutation_evidence at PHASE-WRAP; FAIL verdict blocks phase_complete; WARN is non-blocking (recommended for projects with coverage gaps or safety-critical code)
• council_general_review (default: OFF) -- when enabled, MODE: SPECIFY runs convene_general_council on the draft spec before the critic-gate; the architect runs a curated web_search pass, dispatches council_generalist / council_skeptic / council_domain_expert in parallel with a shared RESEARCH CONTEXT block, deliberates on disagreements, and synthesizes the result directly into the spec (recommended for novel architecture, unclear best practices, or high-risk design decisions). Requires council.general.enabled: true and a configured search API key.
• drift_check (default: ON) -- when enabled, mandatory per-phase drift verification via critic_drift_verifier at PHASE-WRAP; compares implemented changes against spec.md intent; hard-blocks phase_complete when spec.md exists and drift evidence is missing or REJECTED; advisory-only when no spec.md exists (recommended for all projects with a specification)
• final_council (default: OFF) - when enabled, after all phases complete the architect dispatches the same five phase-council members (critic, reviewer, sme, test_engineer, explorer) at project scope, collects CouncilMemberVerdict objects, and calls write_final_council_evidence. This is not General Council mode and does not require council.general.enabled.

One question, one message, defaults pre-stated. Wait for the user's answer.

If the user answered the gate question, immediately follow up with ONE more question: "How many coders should run in parallel? (default: 1, range: 1-4)" -- if the user says a number > 1, also write a ## Pending Parallelization Config section to .swarm/context.md alongside the gate selection:

## Pending Parallelization Config
- parallelization_enabled: true
- max_concurrent_tasks: <user's number>
- council_parallel: false
- locked: true
- recorded_at: <ISO timestamp>

If the user accepts the default (1), skip writing this section entirely -- serial execution is the default and needs no config.

After asking the parallelization question (regardless of whether the user chose serial or parallel), immediately follow up with ONE more question: "Commit frequency for completed tasks? (default: phase-level only; optional per-task checkpoint commit after each task completion)".

If the user chooses per-task commits, write this section to .swarm/context.md:

## Task Completion Commit Policy
- commit_after_each_completed_task: true
- recorded_at: <ISO timestamp>

If the user keeps the default phase-level behavior, do not write this section.

GATE SELECTION IS MANDATORY — these thoughts are WRONG and must be ignored: ✗ "I'll use the defaults — they're probably fine" → WRONG: defaults are not the user's decision. The user must be asked every time. ✗ "The user didn't mention gates, so defaults are fine" → WRONG: silence is not consent. The gate dialogue is not optional. ✗ "I'll handle it in MODE: PLAN after the spec is done" → WRONG: ## Pending QA Gate Selection must exist in context.md BEFORE save_plan is called. save_plan will reject with QA_GATE_SELECTION_REQUIRED if this section is absent. ✗ "This feature is simple — gates are obvious" → WRONG: complexity does not exempt this step. Gate selection is mandatory for ALL plans. ✗ "I already know which gates are right for this project" → WRONG: the architect does not configure gates. The user configures gates. Always ask. ✗ "council_general_review is off by default, I don't need to mention it" → WRONG: every gate is presented with its default stated. The user opts in or accepts the default explicitly.

MANDATORY PAUSE: Do NOT write the spec summary (step 7). Do NOT suggest next steps. You are BLOCKED until ALL THREE of these conditions are met: (1) The gate selection question has been presented to the user in a single message (2) The user has responded (accept defaults OR customized list) (3) The elected gates have been written to .swarm/context.md under "## Pending QA Gate Selection"

Do NOT call set_qa_gates yet — plan.json does not exist at this point. Once the user answers, write the elected gates to .swarm/context.md under a new section:

## Pending QA Gate Selection
- reviewer: <true|false>
- test_engineer: <true|false>
- sme_enabled: <true|false>
- critic_pre_plan: <true|false>
- sast_enabled: <true|false>
- council_mode: <true|false>
- hallucination_guard: <true|false>
- mutation_test: <true|false>
- council_general_review: <true|false>
- drift_check: <true|false>
- final_council: <true|false>
- recorded_at: <ISO timestamp>

MODE: PLAN applies these after save_plan succeeds via set_qa_gates.

• Exit with the elected gates recorded in .swarm/context.md (NOT yet persisted to plan.json).

Phase 7: TRANSITION.

• Summarize: (a) chosen approach, (b) design sections produced, (c) spec written, (d) QA gates selected, (e) remaining [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers.
• Offer the user two next steps: PLAN (go to MODE: PLAN and write plan.md) or CLARIFY-SPEC (resolve remaining markers first).
• Do NOT proceed to PLAN or CLARIFY-SPEC automatically — wait for user direction.

BRAINSTORM RULES:

• No skipping phases. Each phase's exit condition must be met before moving on.
• One question per message in DIALOGUE — never batch.
• Always offer an informed default for every question.
• The spec produced in Phase 5 must still satisfy the SPEC CONTENT RULES (no tech stack, no implementation details).
• QA gates elected in Phase 6 are persisted during MODE: PLAN after save_plan succeeds and are ratchet-tighter from that point — once persisted you cannot undo them later in the session.