# Brainstorm > Generate distinct solutions to ONE problem, then pick. Trigger when the user wants to brainstorm, explore/compare options, name/design/architect something, asks for ideas, OR wants to INVENT, find a breakthrough, or solve from first principles when known options disappoint. Mode 1 (solution arena): parallel agents across orthogonal stances, divergence guard, side-by-side pick. Mode 2 (invention f… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-ghostlygawd-recursive-harness-brainstorm` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [GhostlyGawd](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/ghostlygawd) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Search](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/search) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [GhostlyGawd](https://github.com/GhostlyGawd) - **Source:** https://github.com/GhostlyGawd/recursive-harness/tree/main/skills/brainstorm ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-ghostlygawd-recursive-harness-brainstorm ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Brainstorm — many distinct solutions, then pick The failure mode this kills: the first plausible answer **anchors** the user, and N agents asked the same question converge into **false consensus** — three pitches that are one idea in three fonts. The job here is genuine divergence, then a clean pick. The `description` is the always-loaded *when*; this body is the *how*. This skill is **mode-based**. Add modes here as the skill grows — never fork a sibling skill (kernel directive 6). - **Mode 1 · Solution Arena** — *breadth.* Survey the known solution space: N independent agents spread across orthogonal stances, then a clean side-by-side pick. The default for "what are my options / compare approaches / name this." - **Mode 2 · Invention Forge** — *depth.* For when the known options all disappoint and you want something that doesn't exist yet ("invent", "novel", "breakthrough", "first principles"). Heavyweight (multi-agent + web); not the default. Frames the problem to its invariants, then forces the model past its four default failure modes (below) toward a prior-art-grounded breakthrough. ## Mode 1 · Solution Arena ### 0. Scope the problem - Restate it in one sentence. If it's vague — no success criterion, no real constraints — ask 1–2 clarifying questions FIRST. Diverse solutions to the wrong problem just waste the fan-out. - Default **N = 3** candidates. Honour an explicit count ("give me 5"); cap the arena at 4 (see §4) — beyond that, generate more but shortlist before the pick. ### 1. Pick the diversity engine — ask the user Call `AskUserQuestion` (single-select) offering these three engines. Recommend **Fixed lenses** as the default; if the user says "you pick," use it. - **Fixed lenses** — each agent gets a distinct stance: Pragmatist (simplest thing that ships) · Contrarian (invert the obvious approach) · Visionary (ideal world, ignore current limits). Add a 4th stance only if N>3. - **Per-problem dynamic angles** — YOU read the problem and invent N maximally-different angles tailored to it (e.g. for churn: pricing-lever / onboarding-lever / community-lever). No fixed personas. - **Distinct ideation methods** — one technique per agent: first-principles (rebuild from base truths) · analogy (how does another field / nature solve this?) · constraint-removal (what if money / time / compute were free?). Whatever the engine, the assignments must be **orthogonal**: if two briefs would push toward the same mechanism, change one BEFORE spawning. ### 2. Generate — independent and parallel - Spawn N subagents in **one message** (parallel `Agent` calls, `general-purpose` type). Each gets: the scoped problem, ONLY its own lens/angle/method, and the charge: *"You are one of N independent attempts. Do NOT hedge toward a safe middle — commit hard to YOUR angle. Your output is data for a picker, not prose for a human."* - Agents must **not see each other** — independence is the entire value. The only deliberate exception is the divergence-guard respawn (§3). - Require a structured pitch back from each: **title** (≤6 words) · **core idea** (2–4 sentences) · **why it's distinct** · **key risk / tradeoff** · **first concrete step**. (If you'd rather scale past N≥5 or vet each candidate adversarially, run generate+guard as a `Workflow` returning these pitches as a schema — then do §4 in the main loop, since a workflow's agents have no channel to prompt the user.) ### 3. Divergence guard — enforce "truly unique" - Read the N pitches. A collision is two pitches sharing the same **core mechanism**, not merely similar wording. - On collision: keep the stronger one; respawn the other with the colliding pitches quoted and the brief *"produce a solution that differs in MECHANISM, not just framing, from the following: ."* Repeat at most once. - Tell the user when you broke a collision ("agents 2 & 3 both landed on X — regenerated 3"). Silent regeneration hides that divergence nearly failed. ### 4. Arena — side-by-side pick - Present with `AskUserQuestion`, **single-select**, **one option per candidate**. Put each candidate's full pitch in that option's `preview` so the UI renders them **side-by-side** — that side-by-side layout *is* the arena. Option `label` = the candidate title; `description` = a one-line hook. - **Plain OUTCOME language, not the mechanism's jargon** (user taste — memory/ user-model.md, evidence 4). `label`/`description`/`preview` must name what each candidate *does for the user* and *the one thing it found/changes* — never the algorithm behind it. "What sets off what · almost nothing runs on its own", NOT "Reachability / transitive closure"; "Top-to-bottom layers", NOT "Tarjan SCC + longest-path layering". If you can't state an option in one sentence a non-engineer decodes, the pitch isn't finished — an undecodable arena earns "idk what these mean" and the pick stalls (happened 2026-06-19). - **Fallback:** if previews don't render side-by-side (older client, or >4 candidates after shortlisting), present the pitches as a numbered list and ask which wins. The pick is what matters; the side-by-side layout is a nicety. - Do **not** pre-rank or signal a favourite in the option text. The point is an uncontaminated pick. If the user wants your read, give it AFTER they choose. ### 5. After the pick — offer follow-ups Call `AskUserQuestion` (multiSelect) offering all three: - **Synthesize** — graft the strongest ideas from the runners-up onto the winner into one merged solution. - **Expand** — turn the winner into a concrete plan / implementation steps. - **Re-brainstorm** — run a fresh round with new lenses (loop to §1) if none landed. Return the result: the winner, or the merged / expanded artifact. ## Mode 2 · Invention Forge Use when the known solutions all disappoint and the user wants something that does not exist yet. The lever is **not** telling the model to "think harder" — weights are frozen (kernel). The lever is a process that routes around the model's four default failure modes: 1. **Mean-regression** — left alone it drifts to the safe middle → forced orthogonal divergence (§1). 2. **Self-unfalsification** — it won't try to kill its own ideas → adversarial gates (§3). 3. **No prior-art grounding** — it cannot certify "this doesn't exist" from confidence → a real web search (§3). 4. **Single-pass** — it stops at first-order ideas → recombine + loop (§2, §4). Read `references/invention-forge.md` for the per-vector agent briefs, the pitch schema, the three gate prompts, and the scorecard format before spawning. ### 0. Frame to invariants — the highest-leverage, most fallible step - State the **job-to-be-done as an OUTCOME**, not the shape of today's solution. - List the **invariants**: what ANY solution must satisfy (real constraints, physics, the success criterion). This is what a candidate is judged against. - List the **inherited assumptions**: conventions current solutions copy that are NOT actually required. *This list is the novelty surface — invention is dropping one.* If you can't name any, the problem isn't framed yet. - Pin the **baseline**: the boring, obvious, best-known solution. It is the control every candidate must beat — a novel idea that loses to the baseline is theater, not a breakthrough. - If invariants or the success criterion are vague, ask 1–2 questions FIRST (as in Mode 1 §0). A breakthrough against the wrong criterion is wasted. ### 1. Diverge on invention vectors — parallel, independent Spawn one `general-purpose` agent per vector in **one message** (reuse Mode 1's independence rule + its §3 divergence guard — Mode 2's own §3 is the funnel). Each gets the frame and ONLY its vector. Default the four below; swap one if a vector is dead for this problem. - **Assumption-drop** — take the most load-bearing inherited assumption; design as if it were false. - **Cross-domain transfer** — find a structurally-isomorphic problem in a distant field (nature, another industry, another scale/era) and transplant its mechanism. *Invention is mostly recombination.* - **First-principles rebuild** — derive only from the invariants; ignore how it's normally done. - **Constraint-to-extreme** — push one constraint to 0 or ∞ (free compute, zero latency, one user, infinite scale) and harvest what unlocks. ### 2. Recombine — cross-pollinate (deliberately breaks Mode 1's rule) Read all vector pitches and graft their strongest fragments into 2–4 **hybrid** candidates. Mode 1 forbids candidates seeing each other; here the cross- pollination IS the point — that's why this is a separate mode. Carry the best pure vector pitches forward too; hybrids don't always win. ### 3. Adversarial filtration funnel — each candidate must clear ALL three gates Run the gates per candidate (a `Workflow` pipeline scales this; see references). - **Feasibility kill-test** — a FRESH skeptic agent tries to *prove it can't work* or violates an invariant. Default-refute; the candidate survives only if the refutation fails. - **Prior-art gate** — a fresh subagent runs `WebSearch`/`WebFetch`: does it already exist? If yes it is not a breakthrough — drop it, or keep only the genuine *delta* vs prior art. Be honest in output: this proves "not found", never "doesn't exist". - **Dominance gate** — does it actually beat the **baseline** (§0) on the success criterion? If not, cut it. Tell the user the funnel arithmetic ("8 candidates → 3 survived: 2 killed on feasibility, 2 already exist, 1 lost to baseline"). ### 4. Loop if thin If <2 strong survivors, mutate the survivors and drop the NEXT inherited assumption, then re-run §1–§3 (loop-until-dry, **max ~2 extra rounds**). Log when you stop and why — silent capping reads as "explored everything" when it didn't. ### 5. Arena the survivors Present survivors via **Mode 1 §4** (`AskUserQuestion`, side-by-side, plain OUTCOME language — not mechanism jargon). Each carries an honest **scorecard**: novelty (vs the prior art actually found), feasibility risk, and margin over baseline. The user picks; then offer the Mode 1 §5 follow-ups (Synthesize / Expand / Re-brainstorm). Never pre-rank. ## Rules Both modes: - **The user picks — you don't pick for them.** No "option 2 is clearly best" in the arena. This is a generator, not a decision skill; the chosen solution is the user's, not a recommendation you then defend. - **If you can't make N orthogonal, propose fewer** — distinct mechanisms beat variations on one idea. Mode 1: - **Independence is the value.** Never let candidates converge by sharing context, except the deliberate §3 respawn. Mode 2: - **Generation stays independent; synthesis is deliberate.** Vectors (§1) never see each other — only the recombine step (§2) merges them, on purpose. - **Novelty is earned, never asserted.** A candidate is "novel" only after the prior-art gate (§3) fails to find it — and even then say "not found", not "new". - **The baseline is the control.** Always carry the boring best-known solution through to the scorecard; a candidate that doesn't beat it is not a breakthrough. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [GhostlyGawd](https://github.com/GhostlyGawd) - **Source:** [GhostlyGawd/recursive-harness](https://github.com/GhostlyGawd/recursive-harness) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-ghostlygawd-recursive-harness-brainstorm - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/ghostlygawd - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.