— name: council description: Convene a four-voice council for ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go/no-go calls. Use when multiple valid paths exist and you need structured disagreement before choosing. origin: ECC — # Council Convene four advisors for ambiguous decisions: – the in-context Claude voice – a Skeptic subagent – a Pragmatist subagent – a Critic subagent This is for **decision-making under ambiguity**, not code review, implementation planning, or architecture design. ## When to Use Use council when: – a decision has multiple credible paths and no obvious winner – you need explicit tradeoff surfacing – the user asks for second opinions, dissent, or multiple perspectives – conversational anchoring is a real risk – a go / no-go call would benefit from adversarial challenge Examples: – monorepo vs polyrepo – ship now vs hold for polish – feature flag vs full rollout – simplify scope vs keep strategic breadth ## When NOT to Use | Instead of council | Use | | — | — | | Verifying whether output is correct | `santa-method` | | Breaking a feature into implementation steps | `planner` | | Designing system architecture | `architect` | | Reviewing code for bugs or security | `code-reviewer` or `santa-method` | | Straight factual questions | just answer directly | | Obvious execution tasks | just do the task | ## Roles | Voice | Lens | | — | — | | Architect | correctness, maintainability, long-term implications | | Skeptic | premise challenge, simplification, assumption breaking | | Pragmatist | shipping speed, user impact, operational reality | | Critic | edge cases, downside risk, failure modes | The three external voices should be launched as fresh subagents with **only the question and relevant context**, not the full ongoing conversation. That is the anti-anchoring mechanism. ## Workflow ### 1. Extract the real question Reduce the decision to one explicit prompt: – what are we deciding? – what constraints matter? – what counts as success? If the question is vague, ask one clarifying question before convening the council. ### 2. Gather only the necessary context If the decision is codebase-specific: – collect the relevant files, snippets, issue text, or metrics – keep it compact – include only the context needed to make the decision If the decision is strategic/general: – skip repo snippets unless they materially change the answer ### 3. Form the Architect position first Before reading other voices, write down: – your initial position – the three strongest reasons for it – the main risk in your preferred path Do this first so the synthesis does not simply mirror the external voices. ### 4. Launch three independent voices in parallel Each subagent gets: – the decision question – compact context if needed – a strict role – no unnecessary conversation history Prompt shape: “`text You are the [ROLE] on a four-voice decision council. Question: [decision question] Context: [only the relevant snippets or constraints] Respond with: 1. Position — 1-2 sentences 2. Reasoning — 3 concise bullets 3. Risk — biggest risk in your recommendation 4. Surprise — one thing the other voices may miss Be direct. No hedging. Keep it under 300 words. “` Role emphasis: – Skeptic: challenge framing, question assumptions, propose the simplest credible alternative – Pragmatist: optimize for speed, simplicity, and real-world execution – Critic: surface downside risk, edge cases, and reasons the plan could fail ### 5. Synthesize with bias guardrails You are both a participant and the synthesizer, so use these rules: – do not dismiss an external view without explaining why – if an external voice changed your recommendation, say so explicitly – always include the strongest dissent, even if you reject it – if two voices align against your initial position, treat that as a real signal – keep the raw positions visible before the verdict ### 6. Present a compact verdict Use this output shape: “`markdown ## Council: [short decision title] **Architect:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why] **Skeptic:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why] **Pragmatist:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why] **Critic:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why] ### Verdict – **Consensus:** [where they align] – **Strongest dissent:** [most important disagreement] – **Premise check:** [did the Skeptic challenge the question itself?] – **Recommendation:** [the synthesized path] “` Keep it scannable on a phone screen. ## Persistence Rule Do **not** write ad-hoc notes to `~/.claude/notes` or other shadow paths from this skill. If the council materially changes the recommendation: – use `knowledge-ops` to store the lesson in the right durable location – or use `/save-session` if the outcome belongs in session memory – or update the relevant GitHub / Linear issue directly if the decision changes active execution truth Only persist a decision when it changes something real. ## Multi-Round Follow-up Default is one round. If the user wants another round: – keep the new question focused – include the previous verdict only if it is necessary – keep the Skeptic as clean as possible to preserve anti-anchoring value ## Anti-Patterns – using council for code review – using council when the task is just implementation work – feeding the subagents the entire conversation transcript – hiding disagreement in the final verdict – persisting every decision as a note regardless of importance ## Related Skills – `santa-method` — adversarial verification – `knowledge-ops` — persist durable decision deltas correctly – `search-first` — gather external reference material before the council if needed – `architecture-decision-records` — formalize the outcome when the decision becomes long-lived system policy ## Example Question: “`text Should we ship ECC 2.0 as alpha now, or hold until the control-plane UI is more complete? “` Likely council shape: – Architect pushes for structural integrity and avoiding a confused surface – Skeptic questions whether the UI is actually the gating factor – Pragmatist asks what can be shipped now without harming trust – Critic focuses on support burden, expectation debt, and rollout confusion The value is not unanimity. The value is making the disagreement legible before choosing.