Brainstorm

Decision: $ARGUMENTS

Agent Strategy

Every brainstorm uses 3 core agents in parallel, plus an optional specialist.

Core Agents (always spawn)

Agent	Role	Mandate
Explorer	Codebase & Context Analyst	Maps relevant code, existing patterns, constraints, prior decisions
Analyst	Trade-off Evaluator	Scores options against quality attributes, produces trade-off matrix + WWHTBT
Critic	Devil's Advocate	Assumes the "obvious" choice fails; runs pre-mortem; surfaces risks and biases

Optional Agent (spawn when relevant)

Agent	When to spawn	Mandate
Scout	Unfamiliar tech, external solutions, or user says "what else?"	Researches alternatives nobody mentioned; finds external precedent

References: agent-roles

Execution

1. Frame the Decision

Before spawning agents, restate the decision clearly and identify:

• Decision statement: What exactly are we deciding?
• Options on the table: 2-4 obvious approaches (agents may add more)
• Priority quality attributes: Performance, security, maintainability, DX, operability, cost, scalability, availability
• Constraints: Timeline, team size, existing tech, compliance, budget

2. Spawn Agents in Parallel

Use Task tool — subagent_type=Explore for Explorer, subagent_type=general-purpose for Analyst/Critic/Scout. Give each their specific mandate and output format from reference files. Spawn all agents in ONE parallel call.

References: workflow

3. Synthesize

After all agents return, combine findings:

1. Cross-reference Explorer facts against Analyst scores
2. Check if Critic's pre-mortem reveals risks Analyst missed
3. Incorporate Scout alternatives if spawned
4. Resolve contradictions explicitly — state disagreements and what drives them

References: output-templates, decision-frameworks

Output

Present findings in this order:

1. TL;DR — 2-3 sentence recommendation with confidence level
2. Trade-off matrix — options scored against weighted quality attributes
3. WWHTBT — what would have to be true for each option to succeed
4. Pre-mortem & risks — Critic findings, risk register, bias check
5. Recommendation — detailed reasoning + ADR-ready summary

References: output-templates

Anti-Patterns

• Don't skip the framing step — vague questions produce vague analysis
• Don't let agents duplicate work — Explorer inspects code, Analyst evaluates, Critic attacks; clear boundaries
• Don't omit the devil's advocate — false consensus is the #1 risk in agent-assisted brainstorming
• Don't present raw agent outputs — the synthesis is the value
• Don't anchor on the first option — always evaluate at least 3 approaches

References: cognitive-biases