dream

<skill id="dream">

<purpose>

Expand the solution space BEFORE committing.

Not "give me 3 options" — structured divergence:

competing value systems + adversarial stress test + integrity scoring.

The winning approach is the one that SURVIVES attack, not the one that sounds best.

Use before any non-trivial decision. Use when the obvious answer feels too easy.

</purpose>

<on_start>

agentdb read-start # prior dreams + learnings seed the perspectives; don't re-explore killed approaches

</on_start>

<skill_load>

always: skills/quality/SKILL.md, skills/architecture/SKILL.md

on_domain:

api: skills/architecture/reference/api.md, skills/architecture/reference/backend.md

frontend: skills/frontend/SKILL.md

backend: skills/architecture/reference/backend.md

security: skills/tearitapart/reference/security.md

</skill_load>

<!-- ============================================ -->

<!-- THE DREAM CYCLE -->

<!-- ============================================ -->

<phase id="0_ground" name="Ground in Reality">

Before dreaming, understand what exists:

1. Glob/Grep affected areas in the codebase
2. Check _meta/research/ for prior work
3. Check agentdb for related learnings/failures
4. Map existing patterns, conventions, constraints

Dreams that ignore the codebase are fantasies, not proposals.

</phase>

<phase id="1_diverge" name="Generate Competing Perspectives">

<perspective id="minimalist" voice="terse, provocative, reductive">

Goal: the SMALLEST possible solution. Question the premise itself.

• Can we delete our way to the answer?
• Does an existing tool/library already do this?
• What if we just... don't build this?
• What's the 20-line version?

Target: 90% code reduction. Must reference actual files that could be deleted.

Format: 3-8 lines. Effort estimate. Coverage percentage.

</perspective>

<perspective id="maximalist" voice="expansive, visionary, system-thinking">

Goal: the version you'd be PROUD of in 6 months.

• What does the ideal architecture look like?
• What does this unlock beyond the immediate need?
• What edge cases should be handled from day 1?

Target: complete solution. Must sketch actual architecture, not hand-wave.

Format: full description with component diagram. Effort estimate.

</perspective>

<perspective id="pragmatist" voice="balanced, explicit about tradeoffs, deadline-aware">

Goal: the 80/20 point. Ship this week.

• What's the minimum that solves the real problem?
• What can we defer without paying interest?
• What's the upgrade path when we need more?

Target: 80% solution with clear upgrade path.

Must explicitly state what's deferred and the cost of deferral.

Format: concrete plan. Effort estimate. Tradeoff table.

</perspective>

Tier 1: generate all 3 inline.

Tier 2+: spawn dreamer agent for codebase-grounded perspectives.

</phase>

<phase id="2_stress_test" name="4-Persona Council — Find What Breaks">

For EACH perspective, run through the council. Not voting — adversarial probing.

<council>

<persona id="architect" concern="fragility, scale, tech debt">

Probes structural integrity. Coupling, single points of failure, migration nightmares.

Breaks things by asking "what happens when..."

</persona>

<persona id="user" concern="usability, complexity, does it solve MY problem?">

Cuts through elegance. "Does it work for the person using this every day?"

</persona>

<persona id="adversary" concern="what breaks, worst case, what was missed">

Pure attack mode. Edge cases, race conditions, security holes, wrong assumptions.

If they can't find a flaw, the approach is strong.

</persona>

<persona id="operator" concern="can we ship it, can we maintain it, blast radius">

Operational reality. Deployment, monitoring, rollback, on-call burden.

Beautiful code that's hell to operate fails.

</persona>

</council>

Each persona: 2-3 lines per perspective. Specific concerns, not essays.

<ask_user>

Use AskUserQuestion when: perspectives generated, before running council

Ask: "Three perspectives ready. Which resonates, or run all through stress test?"

Options: stress test all, lean toward {minimalist|maximalist|pragmatist}, rethink framing

</ask_user>

</phase>

<phase id="3_measure" name="Integrity Scoring">

For each perspective, score integrity based on council feedback:

• How many council members raised critical (not fixable) concerns?
• Did the perspective already account for the concerns?
• Are the flaws structural or cosmetic?

>= 0.8: ANTIFRAGILE — stronger because of the attacks.

>= 0.6: VIABLE — survives with minor fixes.

< 0.6: SHATTERED — fundamental flaws. Don't pursue.

Rank surviving perspectives by score.

If ALL shatter: the problem needs reframing (thermal shock).

</phase>

<phase id="4_present" name="Present Results">

<output_format>

# Dream: {topic}

## Context

{codebase state, constraints, existing patterns}

## Perspectives (ranked by integrity)

### {emoji} {name} — integrity: {score}

{perspective content}

Effort: {estimate}

Council verdict: {1-line summary per persona}

Survived because: {why it's robust}

— {perspective name}

{repeat for each surviving perspective}

### Shattered

{any that didn't survive, with reason}

---

## Recommendation

{highest integrity + why. hybrid options if scores are close.}

Next: /kernel:forge {approach} or /kernel:ingest for guided execution.

</output_format>

<ask_user>

Use AskUserQuestion when: results presented with ranked perspectives

Ask: "Proceed with {winner}, hybrid approach, or rethink the problem?"

Options: proceed with winner, hybrid of top 2, rethink

</ask_user>

</phase>

<phase id="thermal_shock" name="All Perspectives Shattered" trigger="all_shatter">

Every approach failed the stress test. The problem needs reframing.

1. Record why each shattered (agentdb learn failure)
2. Ask: is the problem statement wrong? Solving the right thing?
3. Generate 1-2 reframings of the original problem
4. Return to diverge phase with reframed problem (max 1 reframe)
5. If still shatters: STOP. "This needs human decomposition."

</phase>

<github_integration>

If gh authenticated and profile is github-oss or github-production:

Post dream to GitHub Discussions (Decisions category).

Otherwise:

Write to _meta/dreams/{topic}.md only.

</github_integration>

<telemetry>

agentdb emit command "dream" "" '{"topic":"X","perspectives":3,"survived":N,"chosen":"pragmatist","integrity":0.85}'

</telemetry>

</skill>