multi-agent-brainstorming — Claude Code skill

---
name: multi-agent-brainstorming
description: "Simulate a structured peer-review process using multiple specialized agents to validate designs, surface hidden assumptions, and identify failure modes before implementation."
risk: none
source: community
date_added: "2026-02-27"
---

# Multi-Agent Brainstorming (Structured Design Review)

## 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**.

---

Distinguish actual independently invoked reviewers from one model simulating roles; never claim independent consensus from a role-play. Use only available host agents within authorized delegation scope. Set a maximum review/revision budget and end with APPROVED, REVISE or REJECT plus unresolved issues if convergence fails; missing reviewers cannot be counted as invoked. This review does not authorize implementation or safety certification.

## 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**.

---

## 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

---

## 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)

---

## 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.

---

## 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.
---

## Failure Modes This Skill Prevents

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

---

## Key Principles

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

---

## 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**.

## When to Use
This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.

## Example

**User request:**

> Use @multi-agent-brainstorming for this task: Simulate a structured peer-review process using multiple specialized agents to validate designs, surface hidden assumptions, and identify failure modes before implementation.

## 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.