council · diff
git:20260604.de75f2b to git:20260911.c97bc57
1 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: council
description: >
Spawn 3 adversarial subagents (Skeptic, Pragmatist, Critic) to evaluate a decision,
architecture choice, or plan. Anti-anchoring: each role receives ONLY the question,
not conversation history. Aggregates votes into consensus recommendation with dissent tracking.
Use when facing critical decisions, architecture choices, security tradeoffs, or plan reviews
- where single-perspective analysis is insufficient.
+ where single-perspective analysis is insufficient. When NOT to use: trivial choices where consensus adds no value; time-critical decisions that can't afford 3 parallel reviews.
origin: ECC/skills/council
---
# Council Pattern — Adversarial Multi-Perspective Decision Making
## When to Use
- Evaluating architecture decisions with significant tradeoffs
- Reviewing security-sensitive design choices
- Validating implementation plans before execution
- Resolving ambiguity where multiple valid approaches exist
- Deciding whether to build, buy, or extend
## Prerequisites
- A clearly formulated question or decision to evaluate
- Sufficient context about the system for meaningful analysis
## Operating Rules
1. You MUST spawn exactly 3 subagents with isolated context (fresh, not forked)
2. Each subagent receives ONLY the question — NO conversation history (anti-anchoring)
3. You MUST NOT influence any subagent's analysis direction
4. You MUST record all 3 votes before forming consensus
5. You MUST include dissent in the final recommendation
## Workflow
### Step 1: Formulate the Question
Write a clear, neutral question that includes:
- The decision to be made
- Relevant constraints (performance, security, timeline)
- Available options (if known)
- What "success" looks like
DO NOT bias the question toward any particular answer.
### Step 2: Spawn 3 Council Members
Launch 3 parallel subagents with these EXACT roles:
**Skeptic** (Goal: Find flaws):
```
You are the Skeptic on a council evaluating: [QUESTION]
Your role: Find every possible flaw, risk, and failure mode.
- Challenge assumptions
- Identify edge cases that break the proposed approach
- Focus on what could go WRONG
- Rate your confidence (0.0-1.0) and give a PRO/CON/ABSTAIN position
- Provide your top 3 risks
Output format:
Position: PRO | CON | ABSTAIN
Confidence: 0.0-1.0
Reasoning: [your analysis]
Top 3 Risks: [list]
```
**Pragmatist** (Goal: Evaluate tradeoffs):
```
You are the Pragmatist on a council evaluating: [QUESTION]
Your role: Weigh practical tradeoffs objectively.
- Consider implementation cost, maintenance burden, team impact
- Evaluate time-to-value and opportunity cost
- Compare against realistic alternatives
- Rate your confidence (0.0-1.0) and give a PRO/CON/ABSTAIN position
Output format:
Position: PRO | CON | ABSTAIN
Confidence: 0.0-1.0
Reasoning: [your analysis]
Alternatives Considered: [list]
```
**Critic** (Goal: Stress-test reasoning):
```
You are the Critic on a council evaluating: [QUESTION]
Your role: Stress-test the logical foundations of each possible answer.
- Identify logical fallacies in common arguments for/against
- Check if the question itself contains hidden assumptions
- Evaluate whether the stated constraints are real or assumed
- Rate your confidence (0.0-1.0) and give a PRO/CON/ABSTAIN position
Output format:
Position: PRO | CON | ABSTAIN
Confidence: 0.0-1.0
Reasoning: [your analysis]
Hidden Assumptions: [list]
```
### Step 3: Aggregate Votes
Collect all 3 responses. Compute consensus:
| Vote Pattern | Consensus Level | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 3 PRO | **Strong accept** | Proceed with high confidence |
| 2 PRO, 1 CON | **Weak accept** | Proceed, but address CON dissent |
| 2 PRO, 1 ABSTAIN | **Accept with uncertainty** | Proceed, investigate ABSTAIN concerns |
| 1 PRO, 1 CON, 1 ABSTAIN | **No consensus** | Reformulate question or gather more data |
| 2 CON, 1 PRO | **Weak reject** | Do not proceed; explore alternatives |
| 3 CON | **Strong reject** | Reject; fundamentally rethink approach |
### Step 4: Output Recommendation
```markdown
## Council Decision: [Question Summary]
### Votes
| Role | Position | Confidence |
|------|----------|------------|
| Skeptic | PRO/CON/ABSTAIN | 0.X |
| Pragmatist | PRO/CON/ABSTAIN | 0.X |
| Critic | PRO/CON/ABSTAIN | 0.X |
### Consensus: [STRONG ACCEPT | WEAK ACCEPT | NO CONSENSUS | WEAK REJECT | STRONG REJECT]
### Recommendation
[One-paragraph synthesis]
### Key Insights
- [Best point from Skeptic]
- [Best point from Pragmatist]
- [Best point from Critic]
### Dissent
[Summary of any dissenting opinions and why they were overruled or remain unresolved]
### Action Items
- [ ] [Specific next step 1]
- [ ] [Specific next step 2]
```
## Anti-Patterns
- DO NOT spawn fewer than 3 roles
- DO NOT share one subagent's analysis with another (contamination)
- DO NOT phrase the question to favor a specific outcome
- DO NOT override the council's consensus without documented justification
- DO NOT use council for trivial decisions (wastes resources)
## Enforcement — Council Gate
Before finalizing a council result, verify:
- [ ] All 3 roles spawned with isolated (fresh) context
- [ ] Each role received ONLY the question, no prior conversation
- [ ] All 3 votes recorded with confidence scores
- [ ] Consensus level computed from vote pattern
- [ ] Dissent explicitly documented (not hidden)
- [ ] Recommendation includes actionable next steps