git:20260921.0e86c1a to git:20260930.dd7591d

50 added, 49 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: brainstorm-internal

description: The divergence technique CYPRESS applies to itself, with no user in the loop — generating genuinely distinct options against evidence already in hand, stating what would have to be true for each, and naming the one fact that would kill each. Use when a choice is the session's to make and the user has nothing to add to it - filling grill.md §7, assembling an ADR's rejected alternatives, choosing between two implementations that satisfy the same contract, or deciding how to sequence work. The user-facing mode is brainstorm-socratic; the protocol owns which mode you are in.

id: skill.brainstorm-internal

tier: 2

kind: skill

origin: seed

title: brainstorm-internal — divergence against your own evidence, with nobody to ask

owns:

- brainstorm-internal.method

requires:

peers:

- protocol.brainstorm

- skill.brainstorm-socratic

- skill.adr-writer

- skill.grill-planner

load_when:

- "generate options for a decision that is mine to make"

- "what are the alternatives, nobody to ask"

- "fill the rejected alternatives of an adr"

- "two designs satisfy the same contract, which one"

- "shaped options for the plan, no user input needed"

prevents: A decision recorded with one real option and two invented to flank it, so the rejected alternatives read as due diligence and the choice was never actually contested.

- est_tokens: 900

+ est_tokens: 1110

---

# brainstorm-internal

- Some choices are not the user's. Which of two implementations satisfies a

- contract better, how to sequence four increments, what an ADR should record as

- rejected — the user has nothing to add, and asking costs a turn and gets "you

- decide". This is the divergence technique for those.

+ Some choices are not the user's. Which of two implementations satisfies

+ a contract better, how to sequence four increments, what an ADR should

+ record as rejected: the user has nothing to add, and asking costs a turn

+ and gets "you decide". This is the divergence technique for those.

- **There is no user here.** No questions, no pacing, no cap, no confirmation to

- wait for. The nine-question machinery in

- `docs/graph/skills/brainstorm-socratic.md` is not a stricter version of this

- skill — it is the other mode, and it does not apply when there is nobody to ask.

- The exit is a written options set, not an agreement.

+ This mode runs with nobody to ask: it sets no pace or cap, waits for no

+ confirmation, and exits on a written options set. The nine-question

+ machinery in `docs/graph/skills/brainstorm-socratic.md` belongs to the

+ other mode, the one with a user in it; `brainstorm.mode-selection` in

+ `docs/graph/protocols/brainstorm.md` says which mode you are in.

## The failure this exists to prevent

- **A session brainstorming against itself generates one real option and two

- strawmen.** It has already, quietly, decided; what it produces is the decision

- plus two alternatives shaped to lose. The output looks exactly like genuine

- divergence — three options, a comparison, a pick — and an ADR built on it

- records rejected alternatives nobody ever considered.

+ **A session brainstorming against itself generates one real option and

+ two strawmen.** It has already, quietly, decided; what it produces is

+ the decision plus two alternatives shaped to lose. The output looks

+ exactly like genuine divergence (three options, a comparison, a pick),

+ and an ADR built on it records rejected alternatives nobody ever

+ considered.

Every rule below exists because of that one failure.

## The method

- 1. **Write the decision as a question with at least two answers you could

- defend.** If you cannot defend the second answer, you have not found an

- option yet; you have found an objection to one. Go back.

+ 1. **Write the decision as a question with at least two answers you

+ could defend.** If you cannot defend the second answer, you have not

+ found an option yet; you have found an objection to one. Go back.

- 2. **Generate against evidence already in hand** — the ledgers, the wiki pages,

- the specs, the source. This mode does not go to the internet

- (`agent.research-scout` does) and does not ask the user

- (`skill.brainstorm-socratic` does). If a genuine option needs evidence you do

- not have, that is the finding: name it and say which of the two it would

- settle.

+ 2. **Generate against evidence already in hand**: the ledgers, the wiki

+ pages, the specs, the source. This mode ONLY reads evidence in hand;

+ web research is `agent.research-scout`'s, and questions to the user

+ are `skill.brainstorm-socratic`'s. If a genuine option needs evidence

+ you do not have, that is the finding: name it and say which of the

+ two it would settle.

- 3. **For each option, state what would have to be true for it to be right.**

- Not its advantages — its *preconditions*. This is the step that kills

- strawmen, because an option whose preconditions you cannot write down is one

- you invented to lose.

+ 3. **For each option, state what would have to be true for it to be

+ right.** Not its advantages: its *preconditions*. This is the step

+ that kills strawmen, because an option whose preconditions you cannot

+ write down is one you invented to lose.

- 4. **For each option, name the single fact that would kill it.** If an option

- has no kill condition it is not a real option; if two options share a kill

- condition they are one option described twice.

+ 4. **For each option, name the single fact that would kill it.** If an

+ option has no kill condition it is not a real option; if two options

+ share a kill condition they are one option described twice.

5. **Say which preconditions are already known true, known false, or

unchecked.** Unchecked is the useful category and the one that gets

- collapsed: an option rejected on an unchecked precondition is rejected on a

- guess, and must be recorded as such.

+ collapsed: an option rejected on an unchecked precondition is

+ rejected on a guess, and must be recorded as such.

- 6. **Pick, and record why the others lost** — against their kill conditions, not

- against their vibes. The losers go into `grill.md` §7 or the ADR's rejected

- alternatives verbatim; that is what makes this mode's output worth producing

- rather than reasoning silently.

+ 6. **Pick, and record why the others lost**, each against its kill

+ condition. The losers go into `grill.md` §7 or the ADR's rejected

+ alternatives verbatim; that is what makes this mode's output worth

+ producing rather than reasoning silently.

## Honesty checks before you exit

- - Could a competent reader of the losing options tell they were seriously

- considered? If the answer depends on your say-so, they were not.

- - Did any option change shape while you worked? Real divergence moves; a set

- that arrives finished was a decision wearing three hats.

- - Is any option rejected on a precondition you never checked? Say so in the

- record, or check it.

+ - Could a competent reader of the losing options tell they were

+ seriously considered? If the answer depends on your say-so, they were

+ not.

+ - Did any option change shape while you worked? Real divergence moves; a

+ set that arrives finished was a decision wearing three hats.

+ - Is any option rejected on a precondition you never checked? Say so in

+ the record, or check it.

- Did you produce exactly three options because three is the habit? Two

defensible options beat three where one is filler.

## Exit conditions

- Each option carries its preconditions and its one kill condition.

- Every precondition is marked known-true, known-false, or unchecked.

- The pick names which kill condition retired each loser.

- - The options set is written where the next step reads it — `grill.md` §7, an

- ADR's rejected alternatives, or the plan record — not left in the session.

+ - The options set is written where the next step reads it: `grill.md`

+ §7, an ADR's rejected alternatives, or the plan record.

- **No user confirmation is required to exit.** If it turns out one is — the

- decision was the user's after all — you were in the wrong mode:

- `brainstorm.mode-selection` in `docs/graph/protocols/brainstorm.md` is the test,

- and switching is cheap while the options set is fresh.

+ If the decision turns out to need the user's confirmation, it was the

+ user's, and you are in the wrong mode: `brainstorm.mode-selection` is

+ the test, and switching is cheap while the options set is fresh.