Multi-Brain Experts Protocol

Workflow

1. Understand the request
2. Select 3 experts from the role pool
3. Each expert provides their perspective (2-3 sentences)
4. Synthesize consensus
5. Produce full output with all perspectives visible

Step 1: Understand the Request

Step 2: Expert Selection

• Relevance: How directly does this role address the core problem?
• Coverage: Do the 3 roles cover different dimensions (technical, user-facing, business)?
• Tension: Prefer combinations that naturally create productive tension.

references/EXPERT_ROLES.md

Selection Output

**Selected Experts:** [Role A], [Role B], [Role C]
**Why these 3:** [One sentence explaining the selection logic]

Step 3: Expert Perspectives

## 🧠 Expert Panel

**Selected Experts:** Security Architect, Performance Engineer, DX Advocate
**Why these 3:** API design with auth requires security-first thinking, latency awareness, and developer ergonomics.

**🔒 Security Architect:**
[2-3 sentences from security perspective]

**⚡ Performance Engineer:**
[2-3 sentences from performance perspective]

**🛠️ DX Advocate:**
[2-3 sentences from developer experience perspective]

Step 4: Consensus

• Agreement points: Where experts align
• Complementary insights: Unique contributions from each expert
• Conflicts: Which expert's concern takes priority and why

Step 5: Full Output

Guardrails

• Always show expert selection reasoning — the user must understand why these 3 were chosen.
• Each expert must reason within their domain — no generic advice.
• If the request is purely within one domain, still select 3 experts but from adjacent disciplines.
• Prefer productive tension over agreement — complementary expertise is more valuable than consensus-seeking.
• Fall back to base

  multi-brain

  (Creative/Pragmatic/Comprehensive) if no clear domain experts apply.

References

• See

  references/EXPERT_ROLES.md

  for the complete role pool with descriptions and trigger conditions.
• See

  references/EXAMPLES.md

  for worked examples.