Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, Skills and MCP

ensemble-solving

Generate multiple diverse solutions in parallel and select the best. Use for architecture decisions, code generation with multiple valid approaches, or creative tasks where exploring alternatives improves quality.

代码质量与审查679engineering-workflow-plugin/skills/ensemble-solving/SKILL.md

Install

Send this to Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. The agent checks the Skill for safety first and installs it only after you confirm.

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/ensemble-solving/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Ensemble Problem Solving

Generate multiple solutions in parallel by spawning 3 subagents with different approaches, then evaluate and select the best result.

When to Use

Activation phrases:

  • "Give me options for..."
  • "What's the best way to..."
  • "Explore different approaches..."
  • "I want to see alternatives..."
  • "Compare approaches for..."
  • "Which approach should I use..."

Good candidates:

  • Architecture decisions with trade-offs
  • Code generation with multiple valid implementations
  • API design with different philosophies
  • Naming, branding, documentation style
  • Refactoring strategies
  • Algorithm selection

Skip ensemble for:

  • Simple lookups or syntax questions
  • Single-cause bug fixes
  • File operations, git commands
  • Deterministic configuration changes
  • Tasks with one obvious solution

What It Does

  1. Analyzes the task to determine if ensemble approach is valuable
  2. Generates 3 distinct prompts using appropriate diversification strategy
  3. Spawns 3 parallel subagents to develop solutions independently
  4. Evaluates all solutions using weighted criteria
  5. Returns the best solution with explanation and alternatives summary

Approach

Step 1: Classify Task Type

Determine which category fits:

  • Code Generation: Functions, classes, APIs, algorithms
  • Architecture/Design: System design, data models, patterns
  • Creative: Writing, naming, documentation

Step 2: Invoke Ensemble Orchestrator

Task tool with:
- subagent_type: 'ensemble-orchestrator'
- description: 'Generate and evaluate 3 parallel solutions'
- prompt: [User's original task with full context]

The orchestrator handles:

  • Prompt diversification
  • Parallel execution
  • Solution evaluation
  • Winner selection

Step 3: Present Result

The orchestrator returns:

  • The winning solution (in full)
  • Evaluation scores for all 3 approaches
  • Why the winner was selected
  • When alternatives might be preferred

Diversification Strategies

For Code (Constraint Variation):

ApproachFocus
SimplicityMinimal code, maximum readability
PerformanceEfficient, optimized
ExtensibilityClean abstractions, easy to extend

For Architecture (Approach Variation):

ApproachFocus
Top-downRequirements → Interfaces → Implementation
Bottom-upPrimitives → Composition → Structure
LateralAnalogies from other domains

For Creative (Persona Variation):

ApproachFocus
ExpertTechnical precision, authoritative
PragmaticShip-focused, practical
InnovativeCreative, unconventional

Evaluation Rubric

CriterionBase WeightDescription
Correctness30%Solves the problem correctly
Completeness20%Addresses all requirements
Quality20%How well-crafted
Clarity15%How understandable
Elegance15%How simple/beautiful

Weights adjust based on task type.

Example

User: "What's the best way to implement a rate limiter?"

Skill:

  1. Classifies as Code Generation
  2. Invokes ensemble-orchestrator
  3. Three approaches generated:
    • Simple: Token bucket with in-memory counter
    • Performance: Sliding window with atomic operations
    • Extensible: Strategy pattern with pluggable backends
  4. Evaluation selects extensible approach (score 8.4)
  5. Returns full implementation with explanation

Output:

## Selected Solution

[Full rate limiter implementation with strategy pattern]

## Why This Solution Won

The extensible approach scored highest (8.4) because it provides
a clean abstraction that works for both simple use cases and
complex distributed scenarios. The strategy pattern allows
swapping Redis/Memcached backends without code changes.

## Alternatives

- **Simple approach**: Best if you just need basic in-memory
  limiting and will never scale beyond one process.

- **Performance approach**: Best for high-throughput scenarios
  where every microsecond matters.

Success Criteria

  • 3 genuinely different solutions generated
  • Clear evaluation rationale provided
  • Winner selected with confidence
  • Alternatives summarized with use cases
  • User understands trade-offs

Token Cost

~4x overhead vs single attempt. Worth it for:

  • High-stakes architecture decisions
  • Creative work where first attempt rarely optimal
  • Learning scenarios where seeing alternatives is valuable
  • Code that will be maintained long-term

Integration

  • feature-planning: Can ensemble architecture decisions
  • code-auditor: Can ensemble analysis perspectives
  • plan-implementer: Executes the winning approach

Similar Skills

claude-api
anthropics/skills180k

claude-api

Reference for the Claude API / Anthropic SDK — model ids, pricing, params, streaming, tool use, MCP, agents, caching, token counting, model migration. TRIGGER — read BEFORE opening the target file; don't skip because it "looks like a one-liner" — whenever: the prompt names Claude/Anthropic in any form (Claude, Anthropic, Fable, Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, `anthropic`, `@anthropic-ai`, `claude-*`, `us.anthropic.*`, `[1m]`); the user asks about an LLM (pricing/model choice/limits/caching) — never answer from memory; OR the task is LLM-shaped with provider unstated (agent/MCP/tool-definition/multi-agent/RAG/LLM-judge/computer-use; generate/summarize/extract/classify/rewrite/converse over NL; debugging refusals/cutoffs/streaming/tool-calls/tokens). SKIP only when another provider is being worked on (overrides all triggers): OpenAI/GPT/Gemini/Llama/Mistral/Cohere/Ollama named in the query; OR `grep -rE 'openai|langchain_openai|google.generativeai|genai|mistralai|cohere|ollama'` over the project hits (run this grep FIRST if no provider named — don't Read the file).

Code quality & review

ponytail-review
DietrichGebert/ponytail158k

ponytail-review

Quality review of a change: is the logic right, is it safe, does it hold under real load, is risky code tested, is it fast enough, and is every line needed. Reads the connected code, not only the diff. Each finding is explained in plain English. Use for "review this", "code review", "review the last commit", "review my PR", "is this over-engineered", /ponytail-review.

Code quality & review

code-review-and-quality
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-review-and-quality

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted inline.

Code quality & review

documentation-and-adrs
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

documentation-and-adrs

Records decisions and documentation. Use when you need to document an architecture decision (ADR) or the reasoning behind a design choice, when changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.

Code quality & review

code-simplification
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-simplification

Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.

Code quality & review

understand
Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything86k

understand

Analyze a codebase to produce an interactive knowledge graph for understanding architecture, components, and relationships

Code quality & review