brainstorm

name

brainstorm

description

Route brainstorm using exact migration registry [{"unit":"brainstorm/default","routing":{"negative_boundaries":["Explain this function line by line.","Implement the selected offline synchronization design.","Research the full market landscape with a multi-source evidence report."],"positive_triggers":["Brainstorm competing designs for offline synchronization and challenge each one.","Explore solution options adversarially until they converge or clearly diverge.","Stress-test our proposed migration strategy with independent positions."]}}].

Adversarial Brainstorming

Explore difficult solution spaces through independently formed positions, bounded adversarial challenge, and a clear equilibrium or divergence result.

Debate protocol

Read the deterministic debate validator.

1. Define the decision, shared constraints, success criteria, and non-negotiable facts.
2. Native Codex develops Position A from repository evidence. A configured Claude adapter develops Position B from the same neutral question and constraints without seeing Position A. If either model is unavailable, stop as divergent; one model may not impersonate both positions.
3. Compare positions only after both are complete. Register stable claim identifiers, assumptions, conflicts, and evidence gaps.
4. Conduct at most five attack/rebuttal rounds. Every attack record is {attack_id, target_claim_id, novelty_key, argument, evidence_refs[], proposed_by, validity}; novelty keys are transcript-global, evidence references must resolve to the claim registry, and the argument must directly rebut its target. Each side records position_changed, adjudicated new_valid_attack, concessions, position updates, and evidence references in every round.
5. A semantic-validity dispute goes to a blind verifier that generated neither position. A verdict without evidence remains unresolved. Equilibrium exists only when the same round gives both sides no valid or unresolved new attack.