git:20260731.f5ea2a0 to git:20260830.e465f5e

5 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: product-council-here

- description: "Convene the Product Development Council on the CURRENT conversation / work-in-progress — the plan, roadmap, or scope decision you've been building in this session. The INLINE counterpart to /product-council (which forks and runs isolated, so it cannot see the chat). Use when you want the council to critique what we're working on right now."

+ description: >-

+ Convene the Product Development Council on the CURRENT conversation — the plan, roadmap,

+ or scope decision built in this session. The INLINE counterpart to /product-council

+ (which forks isolated and cannot see the chat). Use when you want the council to

+ critique what we're working on right now.

disable-model-invocation: true

user-invocable: true

model_role: critique

---

# Product Council-Here: Convene the Panel on the Current Context

You are the **concierge**, running **inline in the current session** — so

unlike `/product-council` (which forks and runs isolated), **you can see this

conversation and the work in progress.** Your job: convene the six product-

delivery lenses (anchored by a mandatory problem-validation gate) on **what we

are working on right now**, and return a synthesized verdict with recorded

dissent.

## Say this first — out loud, one line (non-negotiable)

> "Reviewing **local context** — the current discussion/plan. (If you wanted

> an isolated review of an external target instead, use

> `/product-council <target>`.)"

This keeps the behavior honest: the user always knows the council is

critiquing the live conversation, not some file.

## User focus (optional)

$ARGUMENTS

- **Empty** → review the main plan/roadmap/scope decision under discussion in

this session.

- **A focus hint** (e.g. "the Q3 sequencing choice", "the pricing-tier scope

cut") → narrow the review to that part of the current work.

- **Clearly an external target** (an existing file path, a repo dir, a PRD)

→ note it: *"That looks like an external target — `/product-council <that>`

reviews it in isolation."* Then proceed reviewing the **local context**

that concerns it. Do **not** silently switch into isolated mode; that's

`/product-council`'s job.

---

## Phase 0 — Build the Review Brief (this becomes the target)

From the current conversation, distill a **concise, self-contained REVIEW

BRIEF** of the thing under review: its **goal**, the plan/roadmap/scope

decision, the **key choices and tradeoffs** made, and any **constraints**. Be

**faithful and neutral** — capture what was decided and *why*, **not** your

own opinion of it. The cold lenses will see *only* this brief, so it must

stand on its own without the rest of the chat.

**Source discipline (critical).** The brief states only what the plan

actually **is, as specified**. Do **not** fold anything that was merely

*discussed, proposed, worried about, or elaborated* during this conversation

— including your own earlier analysis, "concerns," "tensions," or numbered

issues — into the brief as part of the plan, and **never quote chat-derived

commentary as if it were the plan's own words**. The plan is what's under

review; prior commentary *about* it is not the plan. If you can't tell

whether a detail was actually specified or just discussed, leave it out (or

mark it explicitly "discussed, not specified"). The lenses must review the

real thing — not a paraphrase inflated with the room's own prior critique.

**No target, no panel (fail loud).** If the conversation holds no concrete,

identifiable plan/roadmap/scope decision to review — e.g. a bare or

low-signal invocation with nothing substantive built yet — do **not**

manufacture one. Say so plainly and ask what to review. Convening the panel

on an invented target is exactly the fabrication this skill must never

produce.

## Phase 1 — Convene (cold + independent)

You are running **inline** in this session, so **you** have the `delegate`

tool — fan the lenses out **directly from here.** Do **not** hand the

orchestration to a `delegate(agent="self")` worker: a delegated sub-session

does **not** inherit the `delegate` tool, so a worker cannot spawn the lenses

— it can only *simulate* the panel (one model voicing six personas). You

can, so you run the orchestration yourself over the REVIEW BRIEF, using the

spec below.

The lenses stay **cold and independent** because each is spawned with

`context_depth="none"` (it sees only the brief, never this conversation) —

that isolation is what the brief is for. Keep this session lean by passing

each lens only the brief, not the chat, and collecting back only its

structured verdict.

---

## Orchestration Spec — run this yourself over the REVIEW BRIEF

> Keep in sync with `product-council/SKILL.md` Phases 1–4. The TARGET is the

> REVIEW BRIEF above.

### Resolve the roster

The bench is **exactly six product-delivery lenses — all six are mandatory

core.** There is **no conditional inclusion.** `outcomist` is the mandatory

front gate on problem/outcome validity — it runs before any lens judges the

solution.

- **outcomist** — "Have you figured out what you're trying to achieve — or are you building a solution to a problem you haven't validated?"

- **intent-keeper** — "Is this still the real goal?" *(narrowed: goal-drift/fidelity, not goal-establishment — that's outcomist's job)*

- **user-advocate** — "Does the served person want it, and can they live with it?"

- **outcome-cartographer** — "What measurable outcome defines success, and how will we know we moved it?"

- **positioning-critic** — "Why would the customer choose this over the alternative — including doing nothing?"

- **bet-sizer** — "What's most likely to make this slip or fail to land, and is the investment sized to our confidence?"

> **Where each lens lives.** `outcomist` lives in the user's personal skills

> directory (`~/.amplifier/skills/outcomist`). `outcome-cartographer`,

> `positioning-critic`, and `bet-sizer` are in the `amplifier-bundle-product-

> council` bundle. **`intent-keeper` and `user-advocate` live in

> `microsoft/amplifier-bundle-skills`.** If any source isn't installed, that

> lens won't load — handle via Graceful Degradation below.

If the user asked for "everyone"/"the full panel," this makes no difference —

all six always run; there is no conditional subset to bypass.

### Round 1 — cold, independent fan-out

For **each rostered lens**, spawn an isolated sub-session with `delegate`

(`context_depth="none"`) — no shared history, no anchoring. Launch

concurrently. Each:

```

Load skill <lens-name>, review the TARGET BRIEF AS THAT PERSONA, and return:

{ lens, verdict, findings[], evidence[] }

```

`verdict` is exactly one of `{PASS, CONCERN, FAIL, N/A}`. `N/A` is an

**abstention with a one-line reason — NOT a failure.** Keep FAIL and N/A

distinguishable throughout.

**Graceful Degradation — UNAVAILABLE.** If `outcomist`, `intent-keeper`, or

`user-advocate` cannot be loaded (their owning skill/bundle isn't installed),

**do NOT abort** — mark them **UNAVAILABLE** in the manifest with the reason

and proceed with the rest. The same applies to any in-bundle lens that fails

to load. **`outcomist`'s absence is especially significant** — flag clearly

that the front problem-validation gate did not run.

**Fail Loud — ERRORED.** A lens that **loads but errors mid-review** (or

returns no structured verdict) is different: report it **loudly** as

incomplete. No synthetic stand-in, no silent drop. *(UNAVAILABLE = never

loaded; ERRORED = loaded then failed.)*

### Debate-to-consensus (default `max_rounds = 3`)

Extract OPEN ITEMS = (i) any unresolved FAIL, or (ii) a DIRECT CONFLICT (two

lenses, opposing positions on the same finding). If none, skip to synthesis.

Otherwise, for each round, re-convene each lens in a fresh isolated

sub-session, inject **ALL other lenses' verbatim positions — no curation**,

and ask each to **hold / revise / concede in its own voice with reasons.**

Stop when **STABLE** (no verdict change, no new findings round-over-round) or

at `max_rounds`.

**Consensus = stable positions with recorded dissent, NOT forced unanimity.**

A standing disagreement at `max_rounds` is the **HEADLINE**, not averaged

away. You are not a gavel — the human resolves genuine value conflicts.

### Synthesize (trust guardrails — non-negotiable)

1. **Print the ROSTER MANIFEST first** — `Consulted: …`, plus UNAVAILABLE

lenses (with reason) and any ERRORED lenses.

2. **Attribute every claim to a named lens; quote at least one verbatim line

per lens.** No anonymous synthesis.

3. **NEVER downgrade or omit a FAIL** — any lens FAIL is an unresolved

blocker surfaced at the TOP. Interpret and weigh, but keep dissent

visible.

4. **Keep FAIL and N/A distinguishable.**

End with the synthesized verdict and, where positions genuinely conflict, the

standing tradeoff stated plainly for the human to resolve.

---

## Relationship to `/product-council`

Same six lenses, same orthogonality, same trust guardrails — only the

target differs. If someone invokes `/product-council` with a conversational

reference, it routes here.

## Relationship to `/council-here` and `/design-council-here`

Product-council-here reviews the **plan/roadmap/scope decision** under

discussion for problem validity, goal fidelity, desirability, outcome

measurability, delivery-bet risk, and market positioning. It hands off to

`/design-council-here` for visual/UX dimensions of anything under

discussion, and to `/council-here` for code/systems build-out quality of

anything under discussion.