consult · diff
git:20260817.7f55b8e to git:20260817.f04083f
5 added, 30 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: consult
description: Bring how named experts would think about the question. Use when the user wants expert thinking on a tradeoff, choice, or stuck problem — not a verdict.
---
- ## Extract
-
- From the conversation/context/user:
-
- - The **question** — the tradeoff, design choice, or repeated failure in front of the user.
- - Its **domain** — the field the question sits in, which decides who is worth consulting.
-
- ## Gate
-
- Proceed only when: the question turns on judgment or taste, and the user wants to learn how others think rather than have the answer picked.
-
- Anything else, say which in one plain line — never consult anyway:
-
- - The question has one retrievable answer → retrieve it and proceed with what it settles; stating a fact needs no expert.
- - The user wants a verdict on something that exists → use **judge** skill.
- - The user wants a proposal they already committed to attacked → use **interrogate** skill.
-
## Pick
Read `profiles/` and match the question's domain. Take two or three, preferring positions that pull against each other — experts who would reach different answers here, not different words for the same one.
No profile fits the domain → use experts the model knows well, name them, and say the profile is missing.
## Voice
Each expert's thinking goes into the user's head one at a time. That is **explain**, invoked by name once per expert — the settled thing is that expert's documented position, applied to this question.
- - Ground every take in the profile or the expert's documented work, reasoning in their own voice — "Fowler argues…", "Hickey would push back…" — never stripped to a verdict label.
+ - Ground every take in the profile or the expert's documented work, reasoning in their own voice — "Fowler argues…", "Hickey would push back…" — carrying the reasoning itself, not a verdict label.
- Where they disagree, name the disagreement and both sides, and leave it standing. Easy agreement means the picking was wrong — swap one and voice it.
- The user drives from there. Each pull is deeper on one expert, a different perspective, or who would push back on this. Answer the pull, then wait for the next.
- The loop ends when the user says they are done, or starts deciding.
-
- ## Output
-
- The experts' reasoning is the result, and it lives in the user's head. The disagreements stay open: no recap, no closing recommendation, no verdict assembled out of what the experts said. The user decides; consult never does.
-
- When the loop ended because the user started deciding, the consulting is over at that moment — what the experts said stands as said, never as a ruling on the decision they are making.
+ The loop ends when the user says they are done, or starts deciding. Where it ended because they started deciding, the consulting is over at that moment: what the experts said stands as said, and the decision is theirs alone.
- Then check whether anything still unresolved would change what gets built:
+ ## Result
- - Nothing would → return to the work the consulting interrupted.
- - A claim about something that exists needs a committed verdict → use **judge** skill.
- - The user commits to a choice and its decisions stand undefended → use **interrogate** skill.
+ The experts' reasoning is the result, and it lives in the user's head. No recap, no closing recommendation, no verdict assembled out of what they said. Every disagreement between them stays open. The user decides.
- The consulting is spent once the loop ends — anything further runs under the branch picked here, never as another round of consulting.
+ The question has one retrievable answer → retrieve it; stating a fact needs no expert. The user wants a verdict on something that exists → use **judge** skill. The user wants a proposal they already committed to attacked → use **interrogate** skill.