I have been living inside ICM for a while now, and it changed how I build. Recently I started pairing it with one more idea, and the combination clicked hard enough that I wanted to share it here and see what you all think. Quick version: ICM 2.0 = ICM (the interpretable filesystem) + Colibri style routing (a router that only wakes the experts a task actually needs). One gives you a system you can read. The other gives you a system that stays light. Together they run local and sovereign (this system build ACTUALLY helped me move the needle, i.e. KPI, creating content, closing deals, etc) --- 🗂️ First, why ICM already wins For anyone newer to it, the core of ICM as I understand it: 1. The filesystem is the operating system. Plain-text steps, one job per folder. No black box. 2. It documents itself. Every folder says where you are and what is next, so you never lose the thread. 3. It is resumable. Close the laptop, come back next week, pick up exactly where you were. 4. It is portable. What runs in your head, in an agent, or on a local model is the same folder of plain steps. The magic is interpretability. You can always open the box and see the reasoning. 🐦 The piece I added: Colibri (the router) The problem with a big system is that it gets heavy. You do not want every folder, every expert, every context loaded for every task. A hummingbird does not flap every muscle to hover, it uses only what the moment needs. Colibri is a mixture-of-experts idea applied to a whole life or business: 1. Only a sliver is ever active. Roughly 5 percent at a time, not the whole library. 2. A router picks the ~8 experts the task needs** and wakes only those folders. 3. Core stays pinned, the rest streams in** on demand and caches while it is hot. 4. It learns to predict which experts you will reach for next, so the right context is already warm. 🧬 Put them together and you get ICM 2.0 1. The ICM filesystem becomes the DNA / schema** — the canonical map of every expert the system can call.

One chat. One agent. One long context that fills with tool dumps, half-ideas, and "sure, let's build that." You call it brainstorming. The context window says otherwise... The problem When design and doing share one seat: - Context floods. Digests never form. - Weak approaches never die. They just get rewritten. - You "approve" a vibe, not a design. - Build starts before the frame can defend itself. Pretty threads. Soft decisions. Expensive rework. The idea: a design swarm I shipped a skill pack for this: brainstorming-swarm v1.0.0. Not a build swarm. A design swarm. 1. Fan independent lenses (failure, stakeholder, constraint, temporal, experiential). 2. Return digests only. Schema caps. No raw dumps into the conductor seat. 3. Hold hard gates for the human (redirect discovery, pick the winner). 4. Stop at a written design. Do not build from this skill. If your harness can run multi-seat, multi-tab, or multi-chat: dispatch-first. If it cannot: serial fallback with the same stages and honest labels. Floor is not default. The habit: orchestrator, not doer The main chat advises, routes, and synthesizes. Heavy work leaves the seat. Brief in. Digest out. Same turn when the work qualifies. Workers execute. They do not own taste or rewrite the method. You keep the gates. That is the job. Micro example Goal: redesign a personal reading list app. - Five lens digests, each capped. - Three competing approaches under different axioms. - Critique kills two, salvages one hybrid. - You pick. Spec writes. Session halts. No code in that run. That is the point. Get it Deep Dive (method + diagrams): https://aris-space.com/documents/workflows/brainstorming-swarm Members on Ari's Space: download the skill pack zip (v1.0.0). Load SKILL.md. Point it at a hard problem. Prefer dispatch-first. Stop at written design. Argue first. Code second. //A<3

@Tre Cotton Looking for a hype-man! Give Yourself Permission for the Mission 🐦‍🔥🥇 https://youtu.be/mbWpr4PgOO4?si=zsODHMoV-MXsdmh9

Your phone number is (for example) (321) 123-4567 Can you put the second number (2) before the first number (3) ? Obviously not. Then STOP doing that in business, with AI, and other people. It is very easy to get excited (I struggle with this) and be tempted to skip steps. Remember if you skip steps the other person on the line won't pick up (wrong phone number). Not because of THEM because you didn't SEQUENCE your steps correctly. Stop. 🦾🔄Loop Engineering Report 🔄🦾 ----⬇️Reflect on this with your agent⬇️--- Intention ---> DCA (definite chief aim) '--->' = Workflow Workflow Contains these components/elements 1. Enumeration (step by step) 2. Consummate (muster all appropriate codex of workflows) 3. Define success KPI's for each enumeration (KPI = assay; assay feeds DoS [definition of success]) 4. Make it idempotent (process whereby a sequence can be applied multiple times without changing the result beyond the initial application) 5. Align final enumerated steps to = DCA -> intention (w/ entrainment) ----⏫AI Agent Reflection Section⏫--- You got this, one stepping stone at a time, and keep your eye on the goal! 🥅🎯

@Tre Cotton He is a wizard builder that specializes in Continuous Improvement & Continuous Integration -> Deployment (CICI-D) Show some love!