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/magus
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
# Use model IDs from the live catalog (list_models)
{
"brainstorming": {
"primary_model": "internal",
"explorer_models": [
"(model resolved from list_models)"
]
}
}
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> {
// Use model IDs from `list_models` — pick current models for the task
//
const fallbackModels = role === "explorer"
? [/* models resolved from `list_models` for code */]
: ["internal" /* plus models from list_models */];
for (const model of fallbackModels) {
try {
const result = await Agent({
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 Agent({ model: "grok", ... });
// const result2 = await Agent({ model: "gemini", ... });
// const result3 = await Agent({ model: "sonnet", ... });
// CORRECT: Parallel (3-5x faster)
// Use model IDs from `list_models` (live catalog), filtered for code
const [result1, result2, result3] = await Promise.all([
Agent({
model: "(fast_coding role — resolve from list_models)",
prompt: generateExplorerPrompt(problem, "fast_code")
}),
Agent({
model: "(reasoning role — resolve from list_models)",
prompt: generateExplorerPrompt(problem, "balanced")
}),
Agent({
model: "(model resolved from list_models)",
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[]> {
// Use model IDs from `list_models` (live catalog), filtered for code
//
const explorerModels = [
// fast_coding role — fast, code-focused
// reasoning role — balanced, creative
// another model from list_models — 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) =>
Agent({
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": ["internal"],
"explorers": {
// Use model IDs from the live catalog (list_models)
"primary_chain": ["(another model from list_models)", "(another model from list_models)"],
"fallback_chain": ["(model from list_models)", "(model from list_models)"]
},
"thresholds": {
"auto_gate": 95,
"confirm_gate": 60
}
}
}