/brainstorm — Multi-AI Confidence Bid

Each available AI engine assesses a task (implementation, bug fix, refactor, etc.), gives a realistic confidence rating, and proposes their approach. The user picks who takes it.

How to invoke

The user says /brainstorm "task description".

Step-by-step workflow

1. Parse the task. Extract what the user wants done from their message.
2. Build the assessment prompt. Wrap the user's task with this framing for Codex and Gemini:

Assess this task honestly. You are bidding alongside other AI engines — the user will pick who handles it. Be realistic, not optimistic.

Respond in EXACTLY this format (no other text):

CONFIDENCE: [0-100]%
APPROACH: [2-3 sentences max — what you'd do, step by step]
RISKS: [1-2 key risks or unknowns that could trip you up]
NEEDS: [what you'd need from the user — files, context, access, clarification]

Task: USER_TASK_HERE

3. Build conversation context (if relevant). Use your judgment — if the conversation has context the buddies need (constraints, failed approaches, user preferences), summarize it in $CONVERSATION_CONTEXT. If the task is self-contained, leave it empty. Keep under ~500 tokens.
4. Detect available buddies and run them in parallel. Use the dynamic registry:

source "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/lib.sh"
AVAILABLE=$(ai_buddies_available_buddies)  # CSV: "claude,codex,gemini,aider,..."

For each available buddy (excluding claude — you ARE claude), dispatch in parallel:

# For each buddy ID in the available list:
ai_buddies_dispatch_buddy "BUDDY_ID" "$(pwd)" "ASSESSMENT_PROMPT" 360 "/tmp" "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}" "$CONVERSATION_CONTEXT"

Or use the specific adapter scripts for builtin buddies (codex-run.sh, gemini-run.sh).

IMPORTANT: When calling via the Bash tool, set timeout to 420000 (7 minutes). Codex and OpenCode regularly take 3-6 minutes — the default Bash timeout (120s) will kill them.

Cap at top 4 buddies to keep the table readable.

5. Read both output files (parallel).
6. Add your own assessment. Same format — confidence, approach, risks, needs. Be honest. If you're the best fit, say so. If not, say that too.
7. Present the bid table using the format below.

Output format

## Task: [short task summary]

| | Claude (Anthropic) | [Buddy 1 display name] | [Buddy 2 display name] | ... |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Confidence | X% | Y% | Z% | ... |
| Approach | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Risks | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Needs | ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Recommendation:** [Who should take this and why — or "user's call" if it's close]

Columns adapt to whatever buddies are available. Keep the table cells short. If a buddy gave a long response, summarize to 1-2 sentences per cell.

Calibration — your most important job

Each engine has a different confidence calibration. An 80% from Codex and 80% from Gemini don't mean the same thing. You are the calibrator:

• Read the approach, not just the number. If an engine says 85% but the approach is vague or hand-wavy, adjust down.
• Check risks vs confidence. If an engine lists serious risks but still claims high confidence, that's inflated — call it out.
• Show both raw and calibrated. In the table, show what each engine reported. In the recommendation, explain your adjusted read.
• Flag overconfidence explicitly. "Codex says 80% but their approach skips error handling — realistic confidence ~60%."
• Flag underconfidence too. If an engine is conservative but has a solid approach, say so.

The recommendation must reflect your calibrated assessment, not raw numbers.

Your confidence guidelines (Claude)

Be brutally honest:

• 90-100%: You've seen this exact pattern, know the codebase, and can do it right now
• 70-89%: Solid approach, but some unknowns to investigate first
• 50-69%: Can probably do it, but need more context or it's outside your sweet spot
• 30-49%: Risky — might work but significant chance of going wrong
• 0-29%: Not the right tool for this job — say so

Do NOT inflate your confidence to "win" the bid. The user trusts honest assessments.

Handling partial availability

• If only one engine is available: show 2-column table (Claude + that engine)
• If neither is available: give your solo assessment, note the others aren't available
• If one engine times out: show its column as "TIMEOUT" and note it

Example invocations

• /brainstorm "Fix the race condition in the WebSocket reconnection handler"
• /brainstorm "Implement OAuth2 PKCE flow for our React Native app"
• /brainstorm "Refactor the payment service from callbacks to async/await"
• /brainstorm "Add dark mode support to the settings page"

Rules

• One parallel call, one table. No multi-round discussions. No token-burning debate.
• Claude is the orchestrator. You collect, summarize, recommend — then the user decides.
• Realistic confidence only. Overpromising wastes the user's time when the chosen AI fails.
• Never pass secrets or API keys in the prompt.
• Keep it tight. The whole output should fit on one screen.