sd0xdev Codex Brainstorm Skill
Trigger
- Keywords: brainstorm, exhaust possibilities, explore solutions, deep discussion, feasibility analysis, solution exploration, Nash equilibrium
When NOT to Use
- Simple technical Q&A (answer directly)
- Already have a clear solution (implement directly)
- Only need code review (use
/codex-review)
Core Principle
⚠️ Independent Research → Adversarial Debate → Nash Equilibrium ⚠️
Nash Equilibrium = Neither party can unilaterally change strategy to achieve a better outcome
Workflow
| Phase | Action | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude independent research + analysis, forms Position A | Claude's optimal hypothesis |
| 2 | Codex independent research + analysis, forms Position B | Codex's optimal hypothesis |
| 3 | Multi-round adversarial debate, mutual attacks | Debate exchange record |
| 4 | Check equilibrium, no further improvements possible | Equilibrium or divergence |
| 5 | Output final report | Nash Equilibrium report |
Phase 2: Codex Independent Research (Critical)
⚠️ Must let Codex research independently; do NOT feed Claude's analysis results ⚠️
Dispatch this body per @skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md § Start — a fresh thread for Phase 2. The transport pins the
sandbox and the approval policy, so nothing is chosen here. Save the returned threadId; the
Phase 3 debate rounds continue that same thread per its § Resume (references/techniques.md).
Bind every placeholder before writing prompt.md — nothing evaluates an expression in a body-only
template.
You are a senior architect. Conduct an independent analysis of the following topic.
Topic
${TOPIC}
Constraints
${CONSTRAINTS}
⚠️ Important: You must research independently ⚠️
Before forming conclusions, you must first:
- Discover the directory structure:
lsat the repository root, then list the directories it actually shows — do not assume asrc/ortest/unit/layout; many repositories, this one included, have neither - Search related code:
grep -rn "keyword" . -l | head -10— rooted at the repository, or at a directory the discovery step above actually surfaced; never at an assumedsrc/ - Read relevant files to confirm existing implementations
Output Requirements
- Research summary (related modules, existing patterns)
- Your position + supporting arguments
- Potential risks
Phase 3: Adversarial Debate
Structure per round:
- Claude attacks flaws in Codex's proposal
- Codex rebuts or updates position
- Equilibrium check: Can either side raise new attacks?
Termination Conditions
| Condition | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Nash Equilibrium | Neither side can raise new attacks | Output equilibrium |
| Convergence | Both positions converge | Output consensus |
| Max rounds | 5 rounds reached with remaining divergence | Output divergence report |
Verification
- Claude formed an independent position (not following Codex)
- Codex performed code research (not speculating)
- At least 3 rounds of adversarial debate
- Each round has clear attack/defense records
- Final report indicates equilibrium status
References
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
references/templates.md |
Claude/debate/report templates |
references/techniques.md |
Attack/defense techniques |
references/equilibrium.md |
Equilibrium determination flow |
Example
Input: What implementation approaches are available for this requirement?
Phase 1: Claude independent research → Position A (Solution X is optimal)
Phase 2: Codex independent research → Position B (Solution Y is optimal)
Phase 3: Adversarial debate
- R1: Claude attacks Y's scalability / Codex attacks X's complexity
- R2: Claude rebuts / Codex concedes and updates position
- R3: Both converge to Solution Z, no further attacks → Equilibrium
Phase 4: Output Nash Equilibrium = Solution Z