Multi Agent Brainstorming
Low Riskby @sickn33Verified Source
About
Simulate a structured peer-review process using multiple specialized agents to validate designs, surface hidden assumptions, and identify failure modes before implementation.
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.
1️⃣ Primary Designer (Lead Agent)
Role:
- Owns the design
- Runs the standard
brainstormingskill - 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
- Primary Designer runs the standard
brainstormingskill - Understanding Lock is completed and confirmed
- Initial design is produced
- 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:
- Skeptic / Challenger
- Constraint Guardian
- 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 c