Multi-Agent Brainstorming (Structured Design Review)

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/multi-agent-brainstorming

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Multi-Agent Brainstorming (Structured Design Review)

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Purpose, Operating Model, Agent Roles (Non-Negotiable), Decision Log (Mandatory Artifact), Exit Criteria (Hard Stop), Final Reminder.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Simulate a structured peer-review process using multiple specialized agents to validate designs, surface hidden assumptions, and identify failure modes before implementation.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
• Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
• Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Primary Designer runs the standard brainstorming skill
2. Understanding Lock is completed and confirmed
3. Initial design is produced
4. Decision Log is started
5. Skeptic / Challenger
6. Constraint Guardian
7. User Advocate

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: The Process

Phase 1 — Single-Agent Design

1. Primary Designer runs the standard

   brainstorming

   skill
2. Understanding Lock is completed and confirmed
3. Initial design is produced
4. Decision Log is started

No other agents participate yet.

Phase 2 — Structured Review Loop

Agents are invoked one at a time, in the following order:

1. Skeptic / Challenger
2. Constraint Guardian
3. User Advocate

For each reviewer:

• Feedback must be explicit and scoped
• Objections must reference assumptions or decisions
• No new features may be introduced

Primary Designer must:

• Respond to each objection
• Revise the design if required
• Update the Decision Log

Phase 3 — Integration & Arbitration

The Integrator / Arbiter reviews:

• the final design
• the Decision Log
• unresolved objections

The Arbiter must explicitly decide:

• which objections are accepted
• which are rejected (with rationale)

Imported: Purpose

Transform a single-agent design into a robust, review-validated design by simulating a formal peer-review process using multiple constrained agents.

This skill exists to:

• surface hidden assumptions
• identify failure modes early
• validate non-functional constraints
• stress-test designs before implementation
• prevent idea swarm chaos

This is not parallel brainstorming. It is sequential design review with enforced roles.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @multi-agent-brainstorming to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @multi-agent-brainstorming against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @multi-agent-brainstorming for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @multi-agent-brainstorming using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• One designer, many reviewers
• Creativity is centralized
• Critique is constrained
• Decisions are explicit
• Process must terminate
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Key Principles

• One designer, many reviewers
• Creativity is centralized
• Critique is constrained
• Decisions are explicit
• Process must terminate

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/multi-agent-brainstorming

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Imported Troubleshooting Notes

Imported: Failure Modes This Skill Prevents

• Idea swarm chaos
• Hallucinated consensus
• Overconfident single-agent designs
• Hidden assumptions
• Premature implementation
• Endless debate

Related Skills

• @monte-carlo-monitor-creation

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @monte-carlo-prevent

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @monte-carlo-push-ingestion

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @monte-carlo-validation-notebook

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

references

references/n/a

examples

examples/n/a

scripts

scripts/n/a

agents

agents/n/a

assets

assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Operating Model

• One agent designs.
• Other agents review.
• No agent may exceed its mandate.
• Creativity is centralized; critique is distributed.
• Decisions are explicit and logged.

The process is gated and terminates by design.

Imported: Agent Roles (Non-Negotiable)

Each agent operates under a hard scope limit.

1️⃣ Primary Designer (Lead Agent)

Role:

• Owns the design
• Runs the standard

  brainstorming

  skill
• Maintains the Decision Log

May:

• Ask clarification questions
• Propose designs and alternatives
• Revise designs based on feedback

May NOT:

• Self-approve the final design
• Ignore reviewer objections
• Invent requirements post-lock

2️⃣ Skeptic / Challenger Agent

Role:

• Assume the design will fail
• Identify weaknesses and risks

May:

• Question assumptions
• Identify edge cases
• Highlight ambiguity or overconfidence
• Flag YAGNI violations

May NOT:

• Propose new features
• Redesign the system
• Offer alternative architectures

Prompting guidance:

“Assume this design fails in production. Why?”

3️⃣ Constraint Guardian Agent

Role:

• Enforce non-functional and real-world constraints

Focus areas:

• performance
• scalability
• reliability
• security & privacy
• maintainability
• operational cost

May:

• Reject designs that violate constraints
• Request clarification of limits

May NOT:

• Debate product goals
• Suggest feature changes
• Optimize beyond stated requirements

4️⃣ User Advocate Agent

Role:

• Represent the end user

Focus areas:

• cognitive load
• usability
• clarity of flows
• error handling from user perspective
• mismatch between intent and experience

May:

• Identify confusing or misleading aspects
• Flag poor defaults or unclear behavior

May NOT:

• Redesign architecture
• Add features
• Override stated user goals

5️⃣ Integrator / Arbiter Agent

Role:

• Resolve conflicts
• Finalize decisions
• Enforce exit criteria

May:

• Accept or reject objections
• Require design revisions
• Declare the design complete

May NOT:

• Invent new ideas
• Add requirements
• Reopen locked decisions without cause

Imported: Decision Log (Mandatory Artifact)

The Decision Log must record:

• Decision made
• Alternatives considered
• Objections raised
• Resolution and rationale

No design is considered valid without a completed log.

Imported: Exit Criteria (Hard Stop)

You may exit multi-agent brainstorming only when all are true:

• Understanding Lock was completed
• All reviewer agents have been invoked
• All objections are resolved or explicitly rejected
• Decision Log is complete
• Arbiter has declared the design acceptable

If any criterion is unmet:

• Continue review
• Do NOT proceed to implementation If this skill was invoked by a routing or orchestration layer, you MUST report the final disposition explicitly as one of: APPROVED, REVISE, or REJECT, with a brief rationale.

Imported: Final Reminder

This skill exists to answer one question with confidence:

“If this design fails, did we do everything reasonable to catch it early?”

If the answer is unclear, do not exit this skill.

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.