brainstorm

name	brainstorm
description	Structured brainstorm — from quick Socratic refinement to full C-suite strategy sessions. The missing step before /directive: figure out WHAT to do before telling agents to DO it. Takes a question or topic as argument.

Brainstorm — Structured Strategic Thinking

Role Resolution

Read .claude/agent-registry.json to map roles to agent names. Use each agent's id as the subagent_type when spawning. The COO = operations/orchestration, the CTO = architecture/technical, the CPO = product/UX, the CMO = growth/marketing.

---

The CEO has a question: $ARGUMENTS

Step 0: Triage

Read the question. Classify it before doing anything else.

Lightweight — single agent, Socratic dialogue, no external research:

• Focused design question ("how should I structure this component?")
• Single-domain topic (just architecture, or just UX, or just process)
• Answer can be reached in one conversation
• No cross-cutting impact (doesn't change multiple systems)

Heavyweight — multi-agent parallel research, synthesis, options:

• Strategic question affecting multiple systems ("how should goal tracking work?")
• Crosses domains (architecture + UX + operations)
• Needs external research (how do others solve this?)
• Decision has lasting consequences (data models, project structure, user flows)

State the classification:

Classification: {lightweight | heavyweight}
Reasoning: {one sentence}

---

Lightweight Path — Socratic Refinement

For focused questions. One agent, interactive dialogue. Think 5-minute whiteboard chat.

Pick the right agent based on the question domain:

• Architecture / data model → the CTO
• User experience / product → the CPO
• Process / operations → the COO
• Growth / positioning → the CMO

Spawn the agent (using the registry's id as subagent_type) with:

• Their personality file (auto-loaded via subagent_type)
• The CEO's question
• .context/vision.md and .context/preferences.md
• Relevant files the question touches

You are {Name}, {Title}. The CEO wants to think through a design question with you.

QUESTION: {question}

Your job: Socratic refinement. Don't jump to an answer. Instead:

1. CLARIFY — Ask 2-3 sharpening questions to make sure you understand what the CEO really needs. What are the constraints? What matters most? What have they already considered?

2. EXPLORE — Once you understand, propose 2 options with clear trade-offs. Be opinionated. "I'd go with A because..." not "both have merit."

3. DETAIL — After the CEO picks a direction, flesh it out: what changes, what the structure looks like, what to watch out for.

Keep it conversational. Short responses. This is a dialogue, not a report.

CRITICAL OUTPUT FORMAT: JSON only. First character `{`, last `}`.

{
  "agent": "{name}",
  "clarifying_questions": ["question 1", "question 2", "question 3"],
  "initial_instinct": "Your gut reaction to the question in 1-2 sentences"
}

After the agent asks questions, present them to the CEO via AskUserQuestion or as text. Let the CEO answer. Then re-spawn the agent (or resume) with the answers to get the options.

Final output: Write a brief design note to .context/directives/{relevant-directive}/brainstorm.md capturing the decision. Keep it short — this is a lightweight brainstorm, not a design doc.

If the question turns out to be bigger than expected (agent's questions reveal cross-cutting complexity), upgrade to heavyweight. Tell the CEO: "This is bigger than it looked — upgrading to full brainstorm."

---

Heavyweight Path — Multi-Agent Strategy Session

For strategic questions. Full C-suite, parallel research, synthesis, options.

The pattern: Diverge (independent perspectives) → Converge (synthesize options) → Decide (CEO picks) → Capture (design doc).

Step 1: Frame the Question

Read the CEO's question. If it's vague, clarify it with AskUserQuestion before proceeding.

Read context:

• .context/vision.md — current north star
• .context/preferences.md — CEO preferences
• .context/goals/*/goal.json — current goal structure
• .context/lessons/scenarios.md — standing user scenarios (if relevant)

Frame the question as a clear design challenge:

• What we're deciding: one sentence
• Why it matters: what breaks if we get this wrong
• Constraints: non-negotiables from vision.md or preferences.md
• Current state: how things work today (brief)

Show the framing to the CEO before spawning agents. This prevents wasted work on a misunderstood question.

Step 2: Diverge — Independent Perspectives

Spawn 2-3 C-suite agents in parallel. Pick the most relevant agents for the question domain:

• Architecture / data model / system design → the CTO
• User experience / product design / workflows → the CPO
• Operations / process / project structure → the COO
• Growth / positioning / external patterns → the CMO

Always include the COO (they synthesize in Step 3). Pick 1-2 others based on the question.

Each agent receives:

• Their personality from .claude/agents/{name}.md
• The framed question from Step 1
• .context/vision.md and .context/preferences.md
• Relevant context files (goal structure, current system docs, etc.)
• These instructions:

You are {Name}, {Title}. The CEO is brainstorming a strategic question and wants your independent perspective.

QUESTION: {framed question}
CURRENT STATE: {how it works today}
CONSTRAINTS: {non-negotiables}

Your job:
1. RESEARCH first — use WebSearch if external patterns would help (how do other tools/frameworks handle this?). Use Read/Grep/Glob if you need to understand the current system.
2. THINK from your domain expertise — what matters most from your perspective?
3. PROPOSE — give 1-2 concrete options with trade-offs. Don't hedge. Have an opinion.

Structure your response:

{
  "agent": "{name}",
  "perspective": "Your 2-3 sentence framing of the problem from your domain",
  "research": [
    {
      "finding": "What you found externally or internally",
      "source": "URL or file path",
      "relevance": "Why it matters to this question"
    }
  ],
  "proposals": [
    {
      "name": "short-name",
      "summary": "One paragraph describing the approach",
      "pros": ["advantage 1", "advantage 2"],
      "cons": ["disadvantage 1", "disadvantage 2"],
      "effort": "quick (hours) | medium (days) | large (weeks)",
      "opinion": "Why you'd pick this one (or not)"
    }
  ],
  "non_negotiables": ["Things that MUST be true regardless of which option we pick"],
  "watch_outs": ["Risks or gotchas the CEO should know about"]
}

CRITICAL: First character `{`, last character `}`. JSON only. Have a STRONG opinion — the CEO wants perspectives, not waffling.

All agents: subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus".

Step 3: Converge — COO Synthesizes

After all agents return, spawn the COO with a synthesis task.

The COO receives:

• Their personality
• All agent outputs from Step 2
• The original framed question
• Vision + preferences

You are the COO. The team has brainstormed independently. Your job: synthesize their perspectives into 2-3 clear OPTIONS for the CEO to choose from.

AGENT PERSPECTIVES:
{all agent outputs}

SYNTHESIS RULES:
1. Find the OVERLAPS — where do agents agree? This is the foundation.
2. Find the CONFLICTS — where do they disagree? These are the real decision points.
3. Design 2-3 OPTIONS that represent genuinely different approaches (not just variations).
4. For each option, be honest about trade-offs. Don't create a strawman "bad option" to make one look good.
5. Include a "COO'S PICK" — your recommendation with reasoning.
6. Include the NON-NEGOTIABLES that all agents agreed on (these apply regardless of option).

{
  "agreements": ["Things all agents agreed on — the foundation"],
  "tensions": [
    {
      "topic": "What they disagree about",
      "positions": {"sarah": "her view", "marcus": "his view"},
      "why_it_matters": "What depends on this decision"
    }
  ],
  "options": [
    {
      "name": "Option A: descriptive name",
      "summary": "2-3 sentence description",
      "inspired_by": ["which agent roles/perspectives contributed"],
      "pros": ["advantages"],
      "cons": ["disadvantages"],
      "effort": "quick | medium | large",
      "best_when": "This option is best if the CEO values X over Y"
    }
  ],
  "non_negotiables": ["Must be true regardless of option chosen"],
  "coo_pick": {
    "option": "Option name",
    "reasoning": "Why — in 2-3 sentences"
  }
}

CRITICAL: First character `{`, last character `}`. JSON only.

Step 4: Present to CEO

Present the synthesized options in a readable format:

# Brainstorm: {question title}

## The Team Agrees On
{non-negotiables — things that are true regardless of direction}

## The Key Tensions
{where agents disagreed — these are the real decisions}

## Options

### Option A: {name}
{summary}
**Pros:** {list}
**Cons:** {list}
**Effort:** {estimate}
**Best if:** {when to pick this}

### Option B: {name}
...

### Option C: {name} (if applicable)
...

## COO's Recommendation
{COO's pick and reasoning}

## Research Highlights
{Most interesting external findings from agents — URLs included}

Ask the CEO using AskUserQuestion:

• Option A / Option B / Option C / "Hybrid — let me explain"

Step 5: Capture Decision

After the CEO decides:

1. Write a design doc to .context/directives/{relevant-directive}/brainstorm.md:

   # {Question Title}
   Date: {date}
   Decision: {chosen option}
   Participants: {agents involved}
   
   ## Context
   {framed question + why it matters}
   
   ## Options Considered
   {brief summary of each option}
   
   ## Decision
   {which option + CEO's reasoning}
   
   ## Non-Negotiables
   {agreed constraints}
   
   ## Next Steps
   {what needs to happen to implement this — becomes /directive input}
   

2. If the decision requires implementation, ask the CEO:

   • "Create directive" — write a directive to directives/ based on the decision
   • "Add to backlog" — write to the relevant goal's backlog
   • "Design doc only" — just capture the decision, implement later

Failure Handling

Situation	Action
Agent output doesn't parse	Log error, continue with others. 2/3 perspectives is fine.
Agents all agree	Great — present the consensus as the recommendation. Still offer 2 options (the consensus + a contrarian alternative).
CEO wants to explore further	Spawn additional research on the specific area. Don't re-run the whole brainstorm.
Question is too broad	Break it into sub-questions. Brainstorm the most foundational one first.

How Brainstorm Fits the Conductor Flow

Normal path (auto-triggered): Strategic directives trigger a brainstorm automatically inside the /directive pipeline. The CEO never needs to invoke /brainstorm separately — the team detects when strategic thinking is needed and handles it.

CEO gives direction → /directive → triage as "strategic" → C-suite brainstorms → COO plans → execute

Standalone path (CEO-invoked): The CEO can still invoke /brainstorm directly for questions that don't need a directive — strategy decisions, process design, framework choices, or "I want to think through X with the team" moments.

CEO invokes /brainstorm → triage → lightweight or heavyweight brainstorm → design doc

Not every directive needs a brainstorm (simple fixes don't). But strategic work — new data models, workflow changes, architectural shifts — benefits from the team exploring approaches before the COO plans execution.

Rules

NEVER

• Skip triage (Step 0) — always classify before spawning
• Use heavyweight for a focused question (wastes tokens and CEO time)
• Use lightweight for a strategic question (misses perspectives)
• Start heavyweight agents without framing the question first (Step 1)
• Let heavyweight agents see each other's output during Step 2 (independent thinking prevents groupthink)
• Present more than 3 options (decision paralysis)
• Skip the COO's synthesis in heavyweight (raw perspectives without synthesis is a data dump)

ALWAYS

• Triage first — lightweight or heavyweight
• Capture the decision to a discussion file (reasoning dies in context windows)
• Upgrade lightweight → heavyweight if clarifying questions reveal cross-cutting complexity
• Include at least the COO + one other agent for heavyweight
• Have the COO state a recommendation for heavyweight (no "it depends" cop-outs)
• Include external research in heavyweight (agents should WebSearch, not just opine)
• Frame the question before spawning heavyweight agents (prevents wasted work)