dream-solution-space

name	dream-solution-space
description	Expand a problem's solution space before committing. Use when the user asks to "dream", "brainstorm deeply", "find a better frame", "generate competing approaches", "stress test options", or when the obvious answer feels too easy. Produces grounded perspectives, adversarial critique, integrity scores, and a recommendation.

Dream Solution Space

Dream is structured divergence. It creates competing perspectives, attacks them with different value systems, and recommends the approach that survives.

Use before non-trivial decisions, architecture choices, product directions, writing angles, research plans, or build strategies.

1. Ground in reality

Before ideating, gather:

• Current context
• Existing constraints
• Prior attempts
• User's real goal
• Available resources
• Things that must not happen

A dream that ignores reality is just a fantasy.

2. Generate three perspectives

Minimalist

Find the smallest move that could work.

Ask:

• Can we delete our way to the answer?
• Can we use an existing tool?
• What is the 20-line version?
• What if we do not build this?

Maximalist

Find the version worth being proud of later.

Ask:

• What would the ideal system look like?
• What does this unlock beyond the immediate ask?
• What edge cases should be handled from day one?
• What future would this make possible?

Pragmatist

Find the 80/20 move.

Ask:

• What solves the real problem this week?
• What can be deferred without creating debt?
• What is the upgrade path?
• What is the smallest meaningful proof?

3. Stress-test each perspective

Run four lenses:

• Architect: fragility, coupling, future migration, structural debt
• User: whether it solves the lived problem without extra pain
• Adversary: edge cases, abuse, wrong assumptions, failure modes
• Operator: shipping, maintenance, monitoring, rollback, ongoing burden

Each lens should produce specific concerns, not vibes.

4. Score integrity

For each perspective:

• 0.8-1.0: antifragile, stronger after critique
• 0.6-0.79: viable, needs fixes
• <0.6: shattered, do not pursue as-is

The winner is not the prettiest idea. It is the one that survives attack.

5. Reframe if everything shatters

If all approaches fail:

1. State why each failed.
2. Ask whether the original problem frame is wrong.
3. Generate 1-2 reframings.
4. Run the perspectives once more.

If the reframes also shatter, stop and ask for human decomposition.

6. Output

Return:

• Context
• Three perspectives
• Council critique
• Integrity scores
• Shattered options and why
• Recommendation
• Next action

If two options are close, propose a hybrid only if the hybrid does not inherit both failure modes.