Adversarial brainstorming. Claude and Codex independently research then debate until Nash equilibrium. For solution exploration, feasibility analysis, exhaustive enumeration.
name: codex-brainstorm
description: Adversarial brainstorming. Claude and Codex independently research then debate until Nash equilibrium. For solution exploration, feasibility analysis, exhaustive enumeration.
allowed-tools: mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, Read, Grep, Glob
Already have a clear solution (implement directly)
Only need code review (use /codex-review)
Core Principle
⚠️ Independent Research → Adversarial Debate → Nash Equilibrium ⚠️
Nash Equilibrium = Neither party can unilaterally change strategy to achieve a better outcome
Workflow
Phase
Action
Output
1
Claude independent research + analysis, forms Position A
Claude's optimal hypothesis
2
Codex independent research + analysis, forms Position B
Codex's optimal hypothesis
3
Multi-round adversarial debate, mutual attacks
Debate exchange record
4
Check equilibrium, no further improvements possible
Equilibrium or divergence
5
Output final report
Nash Equilibrium report
Phase 2: Codex Independent Research (Critical)
⚠️ Must let Codex research independently; do NOT feed Claude's analysis results ⚠️
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: `You are a senior architect. Conduct an **independent analysis** of the following topic.
## Topic
${TOPIC}
## Constraints
${CONSTRAINTS}
## ⚠️ Important: You must research independently ⚠️
Before forming conclusions, you **must** first:
1. Run \`ls src/\` to understand the directory structure
2. Search related code: \`grep -r "keyword" src/ --include="*.ts" -l | head -10\`
3. Read relevant files to confirm existing implementations
## Output Requirements
1. Research summary (related modules, existing patterns)
2. Your position + supporting arguments
3. Potential risks`,
sandbox: 'read-only',
'approval-policy': 'on-failure',
});
Phase 3: Adversarial Debate
Structure per round:
Claude attacks flaws in Codex's proposal
Codex rebuts or updates position
Equilibrium check: Can either side raise new attacks?
Termination Conditions
Condition
Description
Result
Nash Equilibrium
Neither side can raise new attacks
Output equilibrium
Convergence
Both positions converge
Output consensus
Max rounds
5 rounds reached with remaining divergence
Output divergence report
Verification
Claude formed an independent position (not following Codex)
Codex performed code research (not speculating)
At least 3 rounds of adversarial debate
Each round has clear attack/defense records
Final report indicates equilibrium status
References
File
Purpose
templates.md
Claude/debate/report templates
techniques.md
Attack/defense techniques
equilibrium.md
Equilibrium determination flow
Example
Input: What implementation approaches are available for this requirement?
Phase 1: Claude independent research → Position A (Solution X is optimal)
Phase 2: Codex independent research → Position B (Solution Y is optimal)
Phase 3: Adversarial debate
- R1: Claude attacks Y's scalability / Codex attacks X's complexity
- R2: Claude rebuts / Codex concedes and updates position
- R3: Both converge to Solution Z, no further attacks → Equilibrium
Phase 4: Output Nash Equilibrium = Solution Z