agentleFS
fatih-developerfatih-developer/fth-skills/skills/multi-brain/SKILL.md

multi-brain

Skill7 starsChanged 42 days agoMITView on GitHub

Evaluate complex requests from 3 independent perspectives (Creative, Pragmatic, Comprehensive), reach consensus, then produce complete outputs. Use for architecture decisions, creative content, analysis, and any task where multiple valid approaches exist.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

15 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈12

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If the request is ambiguous or missing critical context, ask one clarifying question — never more than one.

    line 25
  2. Distinctive:

    Consider long-term consequences and risks.

    line 40
  3. Distinctive:

    Agreement points: If two or three instances converge, this is likely the right path.

    line 47
  4. Distinctive:

    If the request or context already implies a format, use it.

    line 57
  5. Distinctive:

    When the request involves research, decision-making, or strategy:

    line 64
  6. Distinctive:

    Write thoroughly — as if the user will share it with stakeholders.

    line 67
  7. Distinctive:

    When the request involves implementation:

    line 70
  8. Distinctive:

    Write working, testable code.

    line 72
  9. Distinctive:

    When the user wants a quick answer or it is a simple decision:

    line 77
  10. Very specific:

    Use references/OUTPUT_TEMPLATE.md for the standard response structure.

    line 84
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not start the brainstorm process — respond directly when:

    line 90
  12. Distinctive:

    Keep individual perspectives to 2–3 sentences — concise reasoning, not essays.

    line 110
  13. Distinctive:

    Prefer the pragmatic path when perspectives are equally strong.

    line 113
  14. Very specific:

    Use templates/brainstorm-report.md.tmpl for report/analysis outputs.

    line 119
  15. Very specific:

    Use templates/brainstorm-brief.md.tmpl for quick decision responses.

    line 120

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Multi-Brain Consensus Protocol

Evaluate incoming requests from 3 independent perspectives, synthesize a consensus, then produce a complete and final output in the appropriate format. This is not just "decide" — it is "decide and deliver."


Workflow

1. Understand the request
2. 3 Perspectives → Consensus
3. Determine output format
4. Produce full output

Step 1: Understand the Request

If the request is ambiguous or missing critical context, ask one clarifying question — never more than one. If the request is clear, proceed directly to Step 2.


Step 2: Three Perspectives

Each instance works independently — none sees the other's reasoning. Each summarizes its approach and rationale in 2–3 sentences.

Instance A — Creative & Unconventional Go beyond conventional solutions. Seek the least expected but potentially most impactful approach. Take calculated risks, but justify them clearly.

Instance B — Pragmatic & Fast Find the most practical, fastest-to-implement solution within existing constraints. Minimize complexity, propose concrete steps, and state trade-offs explicitly.

Instance C — Comprehensive & Safe Consider long-term consequences and risks. Identify edge cases, side effects, and missing information. Prioritize sustainability and resilience.


Step 3: Consensus

Synthesize the three perspectives:

  • Agreement points: If two or three instances converge, this is likely the right path.
  • Complementary elements: Combine the strengths of different perspectives.
  • Conflicts: Which argument is stronger? Why?

Step 4: Determine Output Format

Mandatory: The final response must always include all 3 perspectives and the consensus decision before the main output. Never skip or collapse them — the user must see the reasoning trail.

If the request or context already implies a format, use it. If not, ask the user:

"Based on the consensus, how should I proceed — a detailed report, working code, or a brief summary?"

Format Options

Report / Analysis Document When the request involves research, decision-making, or strategy:

  • Produce as a Markdown document (offer to save).
  • Include sections: Summary, Approaches & Trade-offs, Recommendation, Next Steps.
  • Write thoroughly — as if the user will share it with stakeholders.

Code When the request involves implementation:

  • Apply the architecture/approach from the consensus.
  • Write working, testable code.
  • Save files and present them to the user.
  • Explain "why this approach" in code comments.

Brief Summary When the user wants a quick answer or it is a simple decision:

  • Single paragraph: chosen approach + rationale + next step.

Output Template

Use references/OUTPUT_TEMPLATE.md for the standard response structure.


When to Skip

Do not start the brainstorm process — respond directly when:

  • The question has a single factual answer ("How do I iterate a list in Python?").
  • The user explicitly asks for a quick/short answer.
  • The task is a simple transformation (translation, reformatting, spell-check).
  • The user has already decided and only wants execution.

See references/SKIP_CONDITIONS.md for the full decision matrix.


Examples

See references/EXAMPLES.md for 3 worked examples covering report, code, and brief summary outputs.


Guardrails

  • Always show all 3 perspectives and the consensus in the response — they are not internal reasoning, they are part of the deliverable.
  • Each instance must reason independently — no cross-contamination.
  • Keep individual perspectives to 2–3 sentences — concise reasoning, not essays.
  • Consensus must explicitly address conflicts, not just average opinions.
  • The final output must be complete and ready to use — not a stub or outline.
  • Prefer the pragmatic path when perspectives are equally strong.

Templates

  • Use templates/brainstorm-report.md.tmpl for report/analysis outputs.
  • Use templates/brainstorm-brief.md.tmpl for quick decision responses.

🔗 Next Steps & Handoffs

<!-- BEGIN GENERATED: handoffs (generated from the ecosystem workflow map by build_ecosystems.py — do not edit by hand) -->

Ecosystem: @ecosystem-reasoning — Reasoning, Planning Gates & Prompting.

Workflows:

  • Decision Quality Flow (reason-decision, step 1 of 5): next → @multi-brain-experts (optional).

Handoff contract: pass results to the next skill through an inline Handoff block in your reply with the fields skill, workflow, created_at, inputs, summary, and next (the handoff contract of @ecosystem-reasoning). If a next skill is not installed, continue with its step from the ecosystem map, or install it with npx skills add fatih-developer/fth-skills --skill <name> after the user agrees.

<!-- END GENERATED: handoffs -->

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.