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.