Results for “deliberation”

Decide

Convene a four-voice council of advisors to surface structured disagreement and tradeoffs for ambiguous decisions, go/no-go calls, and multi-path choices.

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.

Convenes a council of specialized agents to debate important decisions, synthesizing independent perspectives into a structured recommendation and optional spec document.

Council

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.

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.

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.

Convenes a multi-persona council of historical thinkers to deliberate on complex problems and synthesize a verdict.

Convenes four independent advisor voices to surface structured disagreement for ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go/no-go calls before choosing a path.

Alias for $plan --consensus

Decide

Convenes four independent advisor voices to surface structured disagreement on ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go/no-go calls before choosing a path.

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.

Convenes a four-voice council of subagents to surface structured disagreement for ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go/no-go calls.

Police the project's vocabulary — bust vague terms, keep the CONTEXT.md glossary sharp, and lock in decisions worth remembering as ADRs. Use when the user debates naming, says "what should we call this", asks to pin down terminology, wants a decision recorded, or when another skill (hot-seat, whiteboard) surfaces a decision that clears the ADR bar. Just reading the glossary for vocabulary is NOT this skill — trigger only when the words or decisions are being changed.

Recommend model families and validation strategy based on data, constraints, and objective. Use when: (1) choosing algorithms, (2) balancing bias/variance, (3) planning benchmark baselines. NOT for: final legal/compliance sign-off.

Produces a decision-grade dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org by testing the user's hypothesis rather than confirming it. Outputs an editable Word document with verdict, identity facts, 12-month activity timeline, network and reputation signals, and red flags.

Deliberative consultation with Kimi API. Ask, evaluate, critique, iterate until workable agreement.

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.

Design experiments and studies before data collection — choosing a design, randomizing, blocking, and laying out treatment combinations so results are interpretable.

Record a decision: finalized → ADR (optionally rule + guide or spec + plan); open proposal → RFC. Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'make it a standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y'. Not for feature planning or documenting existing code.

Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

Deliberative consultation with Kimi API. Ask, evaluate, critique, iterate until workable agreement.

Write clear design rationale that connects decisions to user needs, business goals, and principles.

Use after Cell reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize the (often substantial) new experiments by impact × feasibility, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and closes the "completeness" gaps reviewers demand. Do not run before the experiments and revision are actually done.

Condenses complex materials into a one-page executive decision memo with recommendation, evidence, tradeoffs, and next actions.

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.

Deliberative consultation with Gemini CLI. Ask, evaluate, critique, iterate until workable agreement.

Pauses mid-conversation to reassess direction, assumptions, and bias, then recommends whether to continue, pivot, or pause.

Structured brainstorming for projects and features. Explores multiple options before implementation.

Consensus planning entrypoint that auto-gates vague ralph/autopilot/team requests before execution