Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Lykhoyda/ask-llm/plugin install ask-llmWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-brainstorm-all)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-brainstorm-all"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-brainstorm-all/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-brainstorm-all"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-brainstorm-all.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00061 | $0.00658 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00263 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
ask-llm-brainstorm-all scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 14d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Apply the brainstorm contract with all five external providers: Gemini, Codex, Grok, Ollama, and Antigravity. The current host model forms its independent view first; unavailable providers are reported, not silently omitted; synthesis distinguishes verified evidence from inference.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Follow /skill:ask-llm-brainstorm semantics with ask-multi providers gemini,codex,grok,ollama,antigravity, after the current Pi host model has committed its independent view.
Other hosts adapter
Codex, Cursor Agent, Antigravity, Grok Build, Gemini CLI and OpenCode get this skill from their skills folder, not from a plugin. Follow the ask-llm-brainstorm skill with the requested panel gemini,codex,grok,ollama,antigravity, after the current host model has committed its independent view. Apply the availability filtering, dispatch, and reporting steps in ../ask-llm-review/transport.md.
Claude Code adapter
The existing detailed workflow below is the Claude Code adapter. Its Agent, MCP, hook, CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT, and AskUserQuestion mechanics apply only on Claude Code; they do not override the Pi adapter above.
Multi-LLM Brainstorm (All Providers)
Request all five external providers (Gemini, Codex, Grok, Ollama, Antigravity) while Claude Opus performs its own independent research, then synthesize the participants that answered. The coordinator reports Antigravity as skipped unless ASK_ANTIGRAVITY_ALLOW_UNISOLATED=1.
Instructions
-
Determine the brainstorm topic:
- If the user provided a topic directly, use it
- If the context is about code changes, gather the relevant diff with
git diffandgit diff --cached - If the context is a design/plan, gather the relevant documentation or conversation context
-
If no topic is clear, ask the user what they'd like to brainstorm about.
-
Launch the
brainstorm-coordinatoragent with the topic, external providers set togemini,codex,grok,ollama,antigravity, and any gathered context. The coordinator will:- Run its own Claude Opus research phase in parallel with the external dispatches (Phase 3B — reads actual files, traces code, uses WebFetch/WebSearch on referenced external docs)
- Request the five external providers in parallel (Phase 3A); disclose any skipped participant
- Synthesize all findings with Claude's verified findings weighted higher than inferred ones
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 14d ago First seen · 48 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A adde046703fb
ask-llm-brainstorm-all is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 658 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review, two modes. Strategic Matrix v4.3 (MTA-004) for arguments/plans/decisions: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Summary. Deliverable Audit for built artefacts (assignments, reports, code outputs): isolated fresh-context hunt against the brief…
review-preflight
Review tooling for a PR: review-preflight prints REVIEW.md's criteria and the PR's live gate state before a review; ci-triage maps a PR's failing checks to already-filed issues.