omp-flow-brainstorm

OMP-Flow Brainstorm

Preconditions

• The user consented to task creation or selected an existing task.
• The active task is a readable Bundle with a root index.
• The assignment identifies the Bundle root, bounded objective, entry Concept, and allowed output.
• The entry normally points to brainstorm.md or a linked framing Concept.

First-Principles Orientation

For a non-trivial Explore, use repository/Wiki evidence and human calibration to form or revise a provisional first-principles anchor（第一性锚定）before broad Research. Keep it in useful authored prose, not a required file or fixed checklist. It should be sufficient to expose the concrete actors and action, observable intended outcome, current principal contradiction（主要矛盾）, irreducible outcome, human boundaries, a strong counter-hypothesis, and evidence that would revise the framing. Mechanical low-ambiguity work may proceed directly when this would not improve a decision.

Concentrate interaction on the material decision frontier:

• For purpose, values, risk tolerance, and non-negotiable outcomes, the human states a position first; then give the strongest counter-case, counterexample, and consequence.
• For evidence-led technical choices, an Agent may lead with a recommendation only when it also gives the strongest counter-case and a falsifier: the evidence that would overturn it.
• Use targeted high-intensity Grill only while a question can change the problem core or outcome. Do not exhaust branches, prescribe a question count, or let the Agent silently rank human values.

Interview Contract

1. Read the entry Concept and follow only useful links from the Bundle.
2. Record the initial request, concrete actors/action/outcome, current principal contradiction, and known repository facts in the assigned framing Concept.
3. Inspect code, tests, docs, prior tasks, relevant history, and applicable durable knowledge through the native omp-flow-wiki Skill before asking repository-answerable questions.
4. Ask the user one material decision question at a time. Ask only about purpose, value, risk tolerance, preference, or use that repository and other relevant practice evidence cannot establish.
5. Keep confirmed facts, assumptions, disagreements, alternatives, constraints, success criteria, and open questions distinct.
6. Present materially different directions only when a real choice exists. Follow the human-first and recommendation/counter-case order above instead of anchoring value choices with a model default.
7. Update the linked framing Concept as decisions change. Chat is not the durable source.
8. When a question needs evidence, link a bounded research Concept or assignment and state what anchor assumption, contradiction, or practical decision the result may change. When research confirms, revises, or falsifies the framing, update the authored anchor and next question. This is a practice test（实践检验）spiral, not a one-way gate.