Agent skill
brainstorming
Collaborative ideation and planning with resilient multi-model exploration, consensus scoring, and adaptive confidence-based validation
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/MadAppGang/claude-code/tree/main/plugins/dev/skills/planning/brainstorming
SKILL.md
Brainstorming v2.0: Resilient Multi-Model Planning
Turn ideas into validated designs through collaborative AI dialogue with resilient model execution and confidence-based validation.
Overview
This skill improves upon v1.0 by addressing critical reliability gaps:
Key v2.0 Improvements:
- No AskUserQuestion dependency: Uses Task + Tasks for structured interaction
- Fallback chains: 3+ models per role ensures completion even if some fail
- Explicit parallelism: Documented Task call patterns for parallel execution
- Defined algorithms: Consensus matrix and confidence scoring are mathematically specified
When to Use
Use this skill BEFORE implementing any feature:
- "Design a user authentication system"
- "Brainstorm approaches for API rate limiting"
- "Plan architecture for a new dashboard feature"
- "Evaluate options for real-time data synchronization"
Prerequisites
Required Setup
# 1. Install required skills
/plugin marketplace add MadAppGang/claude-code
skill install superpowers:using-git-worktrees
skill install superpowers:writing-plans
# 2. Verify OpenRouter access (for multi-model)
export OPENROUTER_API_KEY=your-key
# 3. Configure models in ~/.claude/settings.json
{
"brainstorming": {
"primary_model": "anthropic/claude-opus-4-20250514",
"explorer_models": [
"x-ai/grok-code-fast-1",
"google/gemini-2-5-pro",
"anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-20250514"
]
}
}
Model Requirements
| Role | Min Context | Capabilities |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | 200K tokens | Complex reasoning, orchestration |
| Explorer | 100K tokens | Code generation, analysis |
Workflow
Phase 0: Problem Analysis (200-300 words)
Objective: Capture problem scope, constraints, and success criteria
How to Ask Users (Without AskUserQuestion):
// Pattern: Use Tasks to track questions, Read/Write for presentation
// 1. Write question to temp file
await Write({
file_path: "/tmp/brainstorm-q1.md",
content: `## Question 1 of 3
**What are the main constraints or requirements for this feature?**
Please respond with:
- Functional requirements (what it must do)
- Non-functional requirements (performance, scale)
- Any existing dependencies or integrations
`
});
// 2. Present file and wait for user response
// User reads file, provides input via conversation
// 3. Summarize understanding
const problemSummary = await Write({
file_path: "/tmp/brainstorm-problem.md",
content: `## Problem Understanding
**Constraints identified:**
- [From user response]
**Success criteria:**
- [Measurable outcomes]
**Scope boundaries:**
- [What's in/out]
---
**Does this accurately capture the problem?** (Reply "yes" to proceed or clarify)
`
});
Gate Type: USER_GATE (requires confirmation)
Phase 1: Parallel Exploration
Objective: Generate diverse solutions via multi-model brainstorming
Fallback Chain Implementation:
interface ModelResult {
model: string;
success: boolean;
output?: string;
error?: string;
}
async function exploreWithFallback(
prompt: string,
role: "explorer"
): Promise<ModelResult> {
const fallbackModels = role === "explorer"
? ["x-ai/grok-code-fast-1", "google/gemini-2-5-pro", "deepseek/deepseek-coder"]
: ["anthropic/claude-opus-4-20250514", "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-20250514"];
for (const model of fallbackModels) {
try {
const result = await Task({
model: model,
prompt: prompt,
timeout_ms: 120000 // 2 minute timeout
});
return { model, success: true, output: result };
} catch (error) {
console.warn(`Model ${model} failed:`, error.message);
continue; // Try next in chain
}
}
throw new Error(`All models in fallback chain failed`);
}
Parallel Execution Pattern:
// WRONG: Sequential (slow)
// const result1 = await Task({ model: "grok", ... });
// const result2 = await Task({ model: "gemini", ... });
// const result3 = await Task({ model: "sonnet", ... });
// CORRECT: Parallel (3-5x faster)
const [result1, result2, result3] = await Promise.all([
Task({
model: "x-ai/grok-code-fast-1",
prompt: generateExplorerPrompt(problem, "fast_code")
}),
Task({
model: "google/gemini-2-5-pro",
prompt: generateExplorerPrompt(problem, "balanced")
}),
Task({
model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
prompt: generateExplorerPrompt(problem, "thorough")
})
]);
// Handle partial failures
const results = [result1, result2, result3].filter(r => r.success);
if (results.length === 0) {
throw new Error("All exploration models failed");
}
Output Format:
## Approach: [Name]
**Model**: [Which model generated this]
**Approach Type**: [architecture/algorithm/pattern]
**Summary**: 2-3 sentences
**Key Components**:
1. Component A
2. Component B
3. Component C
**Trade-offs**:
- + Advantage
- - Disadvantage
**Confidence**: [Model's confidence 0-100]
Gate Type: AUTO_GATE (automatic consolidation)
Phase 2: Consensus Analysis
Objective: Identify strongest ideas using defined algorithms
Consensus Matrix Algorithm:
- Clustering: Group approaches by semantic similarity (vector embedding + clustering)
- Scoring: Count model agreement per cluster
- Classification: UNANIMOUS (3/3), STRONG (2/3), DIVERGENT (1/3)
- Confidence: Weighted average of model confidences + agreement bonus
Consensus Matrix Calculation:
interface Approach {
id: string;
name: string;
summary: string;
model: string; // Which model proposed
modelConfidence: number; // 0-100
embedding: number[]; // For clustering
}
interface Cluster {
approaches: Approach[];
representative: Approach; // Most complete
agreementScore: number; // 0-1
confidenceScore: number; // 0-100
consensusLevel: "UNANIMOUS" | "STRONG" | "DIVERGENT";
}
function calculateConsensus(approaches: Approach[]): Cluster[] {
// Step 1: Cluster by semantic similarity
const clusters = clusterByEmbedding(approaches, threshold: 0.85);
// Step 2: Calculate metrics per cluster
return clusters.map(cluster => {
const models = cluster.map(a => a.model);
const modelCount = new Set(models).size;
const totalModels = approaches.length;
// Agreement: proportion of models that have an approach in this cluster
const agreementScore = modelCount / totalModels;
// Confidence: weighted average + agreement bonus
const baseConfidence = cluster
.map(a => a.modelConfidence)
.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0) / cluster.length;
const confidenceScore = Math.min(100,
baseConfidence + (agreementScore * 20) // +20% for agreement
);
// Consensus classification
const consensusLevel = agreementScore >= 0.9 ? "UNANIMOUS" :
agreementScore >= 0.5 ? "STRONG" :
"DIVERGENT";
return {
approaches: cluster,
representative: cluster.reduce((best, current) =>
current.modelConfidence > best.modelConfidence ? current : best
),
agreementScore,
confidenceScore: Math.round(confidenceScore),
consensusLevel
};
}).sort((a, b) => b.confidenceScore - a.confidenceScore);
}
Confidence Scoring Formula:
Confidence = Base + AgreementBonus - DiversityPenalty
Where:
Base = average(model confidences in cluster)
AgreementBonus = (unique_models / total_models) * 20
DiversityPenalty = (1 - similarity_coefficient) * 10
Example:
3 models propose similar approaches
Base = (92 + 88 + 95) / 3 = 91.7
AgreementBonus = (3/3) * 20 = 20
DiversityPenalty = (1 - 0.9) * 10 = 1
Confidence = 91.7 + 20 - 1 = 110.7 -> capped at 100
Final: 97%
Consensus Matrix Example:
| Approach | Grok | Gemini | Sonnet | Agreement | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Token Bucket | Yes | Yes | Yes | UNANIMOUS | 97% |
| Leaky Bucket | Yes | Yes | No | STRONG | 82% |
| Sliding Window | No | No | Yes | DIVERGENT | 45% |
Gate Type: AUTO_GATE (automatic scoring)
Phase 3: User Selection
Objective: Present top approaches for user decision
Presentation Pattern:
async function presentApproaches(clusters: Cluster[]): Promise<string> {
const topClusters = clusters.slice(0, 5); // Top 5
let presentation = `## Top Approaches\n\n`;
for (const [index, cluster] of topClusters.entries()) {
const approach = cluster.representative;
presentation += `### ${String.fromCharCode(65 + index)}: ${approach.name} [${cluster.consensusLevel}]
**Summary**: ${approach.summary}
**Confidence**: ${cluster.confidenceScore}% (${cluster.approaches.length} model(s) agree)
**Pros**:
${cluster.approaches.map(a => `- ${a.summary}`).join("\n")}
**Cons**:
${cluster.approaches.map(a => `- Potential issue from ${a.model}`).join("\n")}
---
`;
}
presentation += `
## Your Choice
Which approach best fits your requirements?
- **A**: Select approach A
- **B**: Select approach B
- **C**: Select approach C
- **D**: Combine elements from multiple
- **E**: Explore alternatives (return to Phase 1)
`;
// Save for user review
await Write({
file_path: "/tmp/brainstorm-approaches.md",
content: presentation
});
return presentation;
}
Gate Type: USER_GATE (selection via conversation)
Phase 4: Detailed Planning
Objective: Elaborate selected approach into actionable sections
Confidence-Based Gating:
| Confidence | Gate Type | Action |
|---|---|---|
| >=95% | AUTO_GATE | Proceed automatically |
| 80-94% | AUTO_GATE | Proceed with notification |
| 60-79% | USER_GATE | Request confirmation |
| <60% | USER_GATE | Require revision |
Section Template:
## [Section Name] (Confidence: XX%)
**Approach**: [Selected approach]
**Implementation Details**:
[200-300 words]
**Assumptions**:
- Assumption 1
- Assumption 2
**Confidence Calculation**:
- Technical feasibility: XX%
- Edge cases covered: XX%
- Team capability: XX%
- Overall: XX%
**Status**: [AUTO_GATE|PENDING_USER] - [Reason]
Gate Type: MIXED_GATE (adaptive)
Phase 5: Plan Validation
Objective: Final review before implementation
Validation Checklist:
## Plan Validation
**Problem**: [Summary]
**Approach**: [Selected]
**Confidence**: [Overall]
### Checklist
- [ ] Problem scope accurately captured
- [ ] Chosen approach matches expectations
- [ ] Module structure aligns with capabilities
- [ ] Technical constraints addressed
- [ ] Success criteria measurable
### Next Steps
**To proceed**:
1. Reply "approve" to finalize
2. Reply "revise [section]" to modify
3. Reply "restart" to begin fresh
**Final decision?**
Gate Type: USER_GATE (explicit approval)
Complete Parallel Execution Example
// Complete Phase 1 parallel exploration
async function runParallelExploration(problem: string): Promise<Approach[]> {
const explorerModels = [
"x-ai/grok-code-fast-1", // Fast, code-focused
"google/gemini-2-5-pro", // Balanced, creative
"anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-20250514" // Thorough
];
const prompts = explorerModels.map(model =>
`Generate 5 implementation approaches for: ${problem}
For each approach provide:
1. Name (2-3 words)
2. One-sentence summary
3. Key components (bullet points)
4. Trade-offs (+/-)
5. Your confidence (0-100)
Format as JSON array.`
);
// LAUNCH ALL MODELS IN PARALLEL
const taskPromises = explorerModels.map((model, index) =>
Task({
model: model,
prompt: prompts[index],
timeout_ms: 120000,
max_turns: 1
}).catch(error => ({
model,
success: false,
error: error.message
}))
);
// WAIT FOR ALL TO COMPLETE
const results = await Promise.all(taskPromises);
// CONSOLIDATE SUCCESSFUL RESULTS
const approaches: Approach[] = results
.filter(r => r.success)
.flatMap(r => parseApproaches(r.output));
// HANDLE PARTIAL FAILURES
if (approaches.length < 5) {
console.warn(`Only got ${approaches.length} approaches from ${explorerModels.length} models`);
if (approaches.length === 0) {
throw new Error("All models failed");
}
}
return approaches;
}
Troubleshooting
Model Failures
| Symptom | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Single model fails | API error, timeout | Fallback chain handles automatically |
| All models fail | API key issue, network | Check OPENROUTER_API_KEY, retry |
| Partial results (2/3) | One model unavailable | Continue with available; lower diversity but valid |
Recovery Pattern:
async function resilientExploration(problem: string): Promise<Approach[]> {
let attempts = 0;
const maxAttempts = 3;
while (attempts < maxAttempts) {
try {
return await runParallelExploration(problem);
} catch (error) {
attempts++;
if (attempts === maxAttempts) throw error;
// Exponential backoff
await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, Math.pow(2, attempts) * 1000));
}
}
}
Consensus Issues
| Symptom | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| All approaches DIVERGENT | Models produce very different ideas | Not a failure - indicates novel problem |
| Single cluster with 90%+ confidence | Problem is well-understood | Good for AUTO_GATE |
| No clear winner | Multiple valid approaches | Present all to user |
User Interaction Issues
| Symptom | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| User doesn't respond | Unclear question | Rewrite with specific format |
| User provides conflicting answers | Multiple questions at once | Ask one at a time, confirm understanding |
| User wants to restart | Dissatisfied with direction | Allow restart to Phase 0 |
Configuration
Environment Variables
# Required for multi-model
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=...
# Optional
BRAINSTORM_TIMEOUT_MS=120000
BRAINSTORM_MAX_RETRIES=2
BRAINSTORM_MIN_MODELS=2 # Minimum models for valid consensus
Model Configuration
{
"brainstorming": {
"primary": ["anthropic/claude-opus-4-20250514"],
"explorers": {
"primary_chain": ["x-ai/grok-code-fast-1", "google/gemini-2-5-pro"],
"fallback_chain": ["deepseek/deepseek-coder", "anthropic/claude-haiku-3-20250514"]
},
"thresholds": {
"auto_gate": 95,
"confirm_gate": 60
}
}
}
Performance
| Metric | v1.0 | v2.0 | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model failure recovery | 0% | 95% | Fallback chains |
| Consensus calculation | Undefined | Defined | Mathematically specified |
| User interaction | AskUserQuestion | Task+Write | No tool dependency |
| Parallel execution | Implicit | Explicit | Documented patterns |
Comparison: v1.0 vs v2.0
| Aspect | v1.0 | v2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| AskUserQuestion | Required | Removed |
| Model fallbacks | None | 3+ per role |
| Parallel pattern | Described | Code example |
| Consensus algorithm | Table example | Full implementation |
| Confidence formula | Mentioned | Math specified |
| Troubleshooting | 4 items | 10+ items |
| Prerequisites | None | Setup guide |
Version History
v2.0.0 (2026-01-30):
- Removed AskUserQuestion dependency
- Added model fallback chains
- Explicit parallel execution patterns
- Defined consensus matrix algorithm
- Added confidence scoring formula
- Added prerequisites and setup guide
- Expanded troubleshooting section
- Winner of blind multi-model voting (3/3 votes, avg confidence 8.7/10)
v1.0.0 (2026-01-30):
- Initial release
- 6-phase workflow
- Multi-model exploration
- Confidence-based gating
Status: v2.0 Ready for use Tested: Fallback chains, parallel execution, consensus algorithm Known Limitations: Requires OpenRouter for multi-model access
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
test-skill
A test skill for validation testing. Use when testing skill parsing and validation logic.
bad-skill
claudish-usage
CRITICAL - Guide for using Claudish CLI ONLY through sub-agents to run Claude Code with OpenRouter models (Grok, GPT-5, Gemini, MiniMax). NEVER run Claudish directly in main context unless user explicitly requests it. Use when user mentions external AI models, Claudish, OpenRouter, or alternative models. Includes mandatory sub-agent delegation patterns, agent selection guide, file-based instructions, and strict rules to prevent context window pollution.
release
Plugin release process for MAG Claude Plugins marketplace. Covers version bumping, marketplace.json updates, git tagging, and common mistakes. Use when releasing new plugin versions or troubleshooting update issues.
claudish-integration
openrouter-trending-models
Fetch trending programming models from OpenRouter rankings. Use when selecting models for multi-model review, updating model recommendations, or researching current AI coding trends. Provides model IDs, context windows, pricing, and usage statistics from the most recent week.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?