Files
antigravity-skills-reference/skills/multi-agent-brainstorming/SKILL.md

258 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters
This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
---
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: unknown
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**.
---
## 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**.
### 1⃣ 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
---
### 2⃣ 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?”
---
### 3⃣ 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
---
### 4⃣ 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
---
### 5⃣ 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.