---
name: Codex Brainstorm
slug: codex-brainstorm-2
category: AI Engineering
description: Codex Brainstorm runs independent Claude and Codex research, then adversarial debate to compare solution options and feasibility. Use it for brainstorming, exhaustive enumeration, and final consensus with action items.
github: "https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/tree/main/skills/codex-brainstorm"
language: JavaScript
stars: 188
forks: 24
install: "npx degit https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/tree/main/skills/codex-brainstorm ~/.claude/skills/codex-brainstorm"
installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/codex-brainstorm
source_path: skills/codex-brainstorm/SKILL.md
collection_size: 25
category_size: 3278
collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness"
added: 2026-09-06T05:20:12.933Z
last_synced: 2026-09-06T05:20:12.933Z
canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/codex-brainstorm-2"
---

# Codex Brainstorm

Codex Brainstorm runs independent Claude and Codex research, then adversarial debate to compare solution options and feasibility. Use it for brainstorming, exhaustive enumeration, and final consensus with action items.

**Install:**

```bash
npx degit https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/tree/main/skills/codex-brainstorm ~/.claude/skills/codex-brainstorm
```

## README

# Codex Brainstorm Skill

## Trigger

- Keywords: brainstorm, exhaust possibilities, explore solutions, deep discussion, feasibility analysis, solution exploration, Nash equilibrium

## When NOT to Use

- Simple technical Q&A (answer directly)
- 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 ⚠️**

Dispatch this body per `@skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md` § Start — a **fresh** thread for Phase 2. The transport pins the
sandbox and the approval policy, so nothing is chosen here. **Save the returned `threadId`**; the
Phase 3 debate rounds continue that same thread per its § Resume (`references/techniques.md`).
Bind every placeholder before writing `prompt.md` — nothing evaluates an expression in a body-only
template.

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. Discover the directory structure: `ls` at the repository root, then list the directories it actually shows — do not assume a `src/` or `test/unit/` layout; many repositories, this one included, have neither
2. Search related code: `grep -rn "keyword" . -l | head -10` — rooted at the repository, or at a directory the discovery step above actually surfaced; never at an assumed `src/`
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


### Phase 3: Adversarial Debate

Structure per round:

1. Claude attacks flaws in Codex's proposal
2. Codex rebuts or updates position
3. 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                        |
| ---------------- | ------------------------------ |
| `references/templates.md`   | Claude/debate/report templates |
| `references/techniques.md`  | Attack/defense techniques      |
| `references/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
```