# Brainstorm > Generate, prioritize, and refine research ideas based on current investigation state. Use when the pipeline needs new or better hypotheses — after formalization, between investigation batches, or when all current ideas are resolved. - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-sebastianelvis-reaper-brainstorm` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [SebastianElvis](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sebastianelvis) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Search](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/search) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** Apache-2.0 - **Upstream author:** [SebastianElvis](https://github.com/SebastianElvis) - **Source:** https://github.com/SebastianElvis/reaper/tree/main/skills/brainstorm ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-sebastianelvis-reaper-brainstorm ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Brainstorm The recurring ideation step. Reads the current research state and proposes new or refined ideas for investigation. This skill is lightweight and fast — it generates ideas, not experiments. ## Usage Invoke this skill by name; pass an optional context hint as a quoted string. On slash-command hosts, prefix with `/` (e.g. `/brainstorm ""`). ``` # Generate ideas based on current state brainstorm # With a hint about what direction to explore brainstorm "explore liveness under partial synchrony" ``` ## Relationship to Other Skills - **`/formalize-problem`** handles *initial* formalization: pinning down trust assumptions, the core question, definitional hygiene, and the first set of hypotheses. It runs once. - **`/brainstorm`** handles *recurring* ideation: generating additional ideas as the investigation progresses. It runs many times. - **`/investigate`** handles *execution*: deep-diving into specific ideas. It does not generate new hypotheses. ## Inputs **Always read** before starting: - `reaper-workspace/notes/problem-statement.md` — model assumptions and property definitions - `reaper-workspace/notes/ideas.md` — the current ideas and their resolution status - `reaper-workspace/notes/current-understanding.md` — the "branch tip" of accumulated knowledge - `reaper-workspace/notes/results.md` — what's been tried and what happened. **If the file is long (20+ rows), read the batch summaries at the end instead of every individual row.** Look for patterns in failures across batches, not individual cycle details. **Lazy-load only when needed** (skip these unless you're stuck or exploring a specific direction): - `reaper-workspace/notes/paper-summary.md` — the source paper (if provided) - `reaper-workspace/notes/literature.md` — known prior work - `reaper-workspace/notes/clarified-goal.md` — refined research goal and scope - `reaper-workspace/papers/` — downloaded PDFs and per-paper notes - The optional context hint from the argument ## Process ### 1. Assess Current State Read all inputs and build a picture of: - **Resolved ideas**: Which hypotheses have been confirmed, refuted, or are no longer worth pursuing? - **Unresolved ideas**: Which are still open? Are any stuck (multiple inconclusive cycles)? - **Patterns in failures**: Do discarded cycles cluster around a common obstacle? A pattern in dead ends is itself informative. - **Emerging themes**: Have "keep" results revealed a direction that wasn't anticipated in the original formalization? ### 2. Generate New Ideas Apply these techniques systematically. Not all will produce ideas every time — use the ones that fit the current state. #### Gap-Finding (Qian: Fill in the Blank) Map the dimensions of existing work and find unexplored combinations. Consult `../reaper/references/model.md` for the domain-appropriate gap-finding matrix dimensions. Which cells in this matrix are empty? Those are candidate hypotheses. #### Problem Inversion (Hamming) For each stuck or failed hypothesis, invert it: - Can't prove it? Try to disprove it. - Can't find a counterexample? Ask what minimal assumption would make the proof work. - Can't achieve a property? Ask what weaker property is achievable, or what stronger model is needed. What seems like a blockage often becomes the key insight. #### Qian's Patterns - **Start small then generalize**: What's the simplest case (n=2, 1 round, crash-only)? Can you solve it there first, then lift? - **Build a hammer**: Can a technique from a previous cycle apply here in a different way? Look at "keep" results for reusable proof strategies. - **Expansion**: Take a confirmed result and ask what happens when you relax one assumption. #### Follow the Evidence What do the "keep" results *imply* that hasn't been stated as a hypothesis yet? If you proved safety holds under X, does that suggest liveness might fail under X? If you found a gap in the proof, does the same gap appear in related protocols? #### Negative Result Escalation If a hypothesis has trended toward refutation over 3+ cycles (counterexample attempts partially succeed, proof attempts consistently fail at the same point): - Propose a new hypothesis that *proves* the negative: "Protocol X cannot achieve property Y under model Z because..." - Propose a "minimal fix" hypothesis: "What is the weakest additional assumption that restores property Y?" ### 3. Screen Against Known Impossibilities For each candidate idea, check whether it contradicts a known impossibility or lower bound. Consult `../reaper/references/impossibility-results.md` for the domain-relevant impossibility results and lower bounds. If a candidate contradicts a known impossibility: 1. Flag it explicitly with a warning 2. Reformulate: "Under what additional assumptions does this become possible?" or "What weaker property can be achieved?" 3. Do NOT leave it as a hypothesis for investigate to waste cycles on ### 4. Prioritize (Hamming: Importance Filter) Not all ideas are equally worth investigating. Rank by consequence — ask: "If we resolved this idea, who would care and why?" Consult `../reaper/references/model.md` for domain-specific examples of how to rank by importance. ### 5. Write Output Update `reaper-workspace/notes/ideas.md`: - **New ideas**: Add under a clearly marked section. - **Existing ideas**: If an idea should be deprioritized, marked as subsumed, or have its statement refined based on new understanding, **edit it inline** rather than leaving stale entries. New ideas use this format: ```markdown ## Ideas — Brainstorm Round N ### H: [Short descriptive title] - **Statement**: [Precise, falsifiable claim — specific enough that a reader could disagree] - **Success condition**: [What evidence would confirm this?] - **Failure condition**: [What evidence would refute this?] - **Priority**: High / Medium / Low - **Rationale**: [Why this priority? What's the consequence of resolving it?] - **Source**: [What prompted this idea — a pattern in failures, a gap in the matrix, an inversion of H, etc.] ``` Where N is one more than the highest existing brainstorm round (or 1 if none exist). Use hypothesis numbers that continue from the highest existing H number. **Constraints**: - At most 3-5 new ideas per round — focus beats breadth - Every idea must be **atomic** — investigable in a single cycle. Split compound ideas (e.g., "prove safety AND liveness") into separate hypotheses - Every idea must be **falsifiable** — a reader could disagree with it - Every idea must have **explicit** success and failure conditions - Do not duplicate existing unresolved ideas — check `ideas.md` first - If the context hint from the argument suggests a direction, weight it heavily but don't ignore other promising directions ### 6. Report After writing, briefly summarize to the orchestrator: - How many new ideas were added - What the highest-priority new idea is and why - Whether any existing ideas should be deprioritized or marked as subsumed ## Quality Criteria - Every new idea is falsifiable with explicit success/failure conditions - Ideas are screened against known impossibilities before being added - Priorities are justified by consequence, not convenience - No duplication of existing unresolved ideas - The source/motivation for each idea is documented - At most 3-5 ideas per round — if you have more, merge or drop the low-priority ones - The brainstorm round is fast — no experiments, no proof attempts, no literature searches within this skill - If `problem-statement.md` or `ideas.md` is missing, return an error to the orchestrator ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [SebastianElvis](https://github.com/SebastianElvis) - **Source:** [SebastianElvis/reaper](https://github.com/SebastianElvis/reaper) - **License:** Apache-2.0 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-sebastianelvis-reaper-brainstorm - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sebastianelvis - 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%.