hashgraph-online Not "give me 3 options" — structured divergence: competing value systems + adversarial stress test + integrity scoring.
The winning approach is the one that SURVIVES attack, not the one that sounds best.
Use before any non-trivial decision. Use when the obvious answer feels too easy.
Dreams that ignore the codebase are fantasies, not proposals.
Target: 90% code reduction. Must reference actual files that could be deleted.
Format: 3-8 lines. Effort estimate. Coverage percentage.
Target: complete solution. Must sketch actual architecture, not hand-wave.
Format: full description with component diagram. Effort estimate.
Target: 80% solution with clear upgrade path.
Must explicitly state what's deferred and the cost of deferral.
Format: concrete plan. Effort estimate. Tradeoff table.
Tier 1: generate all 3 inline. Tier 2+: spawn dreamer agent for codebase-grounded perspectives.
<persona id="user" concern="usability, complexity, does it solve MY problem?">
Cuts through elegance. "Does it work for the person using this every day?"
</persona>
<persona id="adversary" concern="what breaks, worst case, what was missed">
Pure attack mode. Edge cases, race conditions, security holes, wrong assumptions.
If they can't find a flaw, the approach is strong.
</persona>
<persona id="operator" concern="can we ship it, can we maintain it, blast radius">
Operational reality. Deployment, monitoring, rollback, on-call burden.
Beautiful code that's hell to operate fails.
</persona>
Each persona: 2-3 lines per perspective. Specific concerns, not essays.
- How many council members raised critical (not fixable) concerns?
- Did the perspective already account for the concerns?
- Are the flaws structural or cosmetic?
= 0.8: ANTIFRAGILE — stronger because of the attacks. = 0.6: VIABLE — survives with minor fixes. < 0.6: SHATTERED — fundamental flaws. Don't pursue.
Rank surviving perspectives by score. If ALL shatter: the problem needs reframing (thermal shock).
Context
{codebase state, constraints, existing patterns}
Perspectives (ranked by integrity)
{emoji} {name} — integrity: {score}
{perspective content} Effort: {estimate} Council verdict: {1-line summary per persona} Survived because: {why it's robust} — {perspective name}
{repeat for each surviving perspective}
Shattered
{any that didn't survive, with reason}
Recommendation
{highest integrity + why. hybrid options if scores are close.}
Next: /kernel:forge {approach} or /kernel:ingest for guided execution.
- Record why each shattered (agentdb learn failure)
- Ask: is the problem statement wrong? Solving the right thing?
- Generate 1-2 reframings of the original problem
- Return to diverge phase with reframed problem (max 1 reframe)
- If still shatters: STOP. "This needs human decomposition."