# Dream Solution Space

> 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.

- Skill: `ariaxhan/dream-solution-space` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ariaxhan/dream-solution-space`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ariaxhan/dream-solution-space/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: ariaxhan (https://skillmd.com/u/ariaxhan)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ariaxhan/dream-solution-space

---


# 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.