Council — Multi-Perspective Analysis
A multi-perspective analysis framework that provides objective, debiased evaluation of
codebases, projects, and documentation. Uses multiple viewpoints and debiasing techniques
to overcome the tendency to anchor on existing code.
The Problem This Solves
AI tools (and humans) tend to anchor on existing code. They see what IS and struggle to
imagine what COULD BE. They validate rather than explore. Council uses:
- Debiasing techniques — Methods that force fresh thinking
- Multiple perspectives — Different mental models that catch different things
- Structured synthesis — Combining insights while tracking disagreements
When to Use
- Evaluating if current approach is still optimal
- Exploring alternatives to existing implementation
- Identifying hidden assumptions in your project
- Getting objective feedback before major decisions
- When stuck in local optimum
- When you suspect there might be a better way but can't see it
- When AI tools keep echoing back your existing patterns
Input
User provides:
- Target: Repository path, documentation, or specific problem description
- Goal (optional): What success looks like (e.g., "maximize profitability")
- Constraints (optional): What must be preserved (e.g., "must use existing data model")
Execution Flow
Phase 1: Scout
Read and understand the target thoroughly. Document:
- What the project does
- How it's currently structured
- What constraints exist
- What the stated goals are
Do NOT form opinions yet. Just gather facts.
Phase 2: Generate Perspectives
Select 3-5 relevant perspectives based on the target:
| Perspective |
Focus |
Best For |
| Architect |
Structure, patterns, coupling, cohesion |
System design, refactoring |
| Challenger |
Assumptions, risks, alternatives |
Decision validation, risk mitigation |
| Opportunist |
New tech, shortcuts, simplification |
Optimization, debt reduction |
| Security |
Trust boundaries, failure modes |
Safety, reliability |
| Economist |
Cost, complexity, ROI |
Resource allocation, prioritization |
| User |
Usability, value, friction |
UX, product decisions |
| Archaeologist |
Legacy, debt, history |
Understanding, migration |
| Futurist |
Trends, scaling, evolution |
Long-term planning |
For complex targets, use spawn_agents to run perspectives in parallel — each agent
works independently to avoid groupthink, then results combine in Phase 3.
For simpler targets, run perspectives sequentially in a single agent.
Each perspective applies these debiasing techniques:
- Fresh Eyes Mode: Deliberately ignore the existing implementation. Ask: "What would I build if starting from zero, knowing only the goal?"
- Challenge Mode: Question every assumption. Why does this component exist? What if we removed it? What if the opposite were true?
- Rebuild Mode: "If I had to solve this from scratch with today's knowledge, what would I do differently?"
See references/debiasing.md for detailed debiasing techniques and prompts.
Phase 3: Synthesize
Combine perspectives into structured output:
- Agreements: What multiple perspectives agree on (high confidence)
- Disagreements: Where perspectives conflict (dig deeper — these reveal tradeoffs)
- Novel Insights: Things only one perspective caught
- Prioritized Recommendations: Ranked by impact and confidence
See agents/synthesizer.md for detailed synthesis instructions when using subagents.
Phase 4: Validate
- Check that recommendations don't contradict each other
- Flag any assumptions that weren't validated
- Identify what information would change conclusions
Output Format
# Council Report: [Target]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence objective assessment — not a summary of what was done, but a verdict]
## Key Findings
### [Finding Name]
- **What**: [Clear description of the finding]
- **Perspectives that agree**: [List]
- **Perspectives that disagree**: [List + brief reason]
- **Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low]
- **Evidence**: [Specific file:line, metric, or observation]
## Recommendations
### [HIGH IMPACT] [Recommendation Title]
- **Problem addressed**: [The finding this fixes]
- **Solution**: [Concrete action]
- **Expected impact**: [What improves and by how much]
- **Effort**: [Low/Medium/High]
- **Risk**: [Low/Medium/High]
- **Perspectives supporting**: [List]
### [MEDIUM IMPACT] ...
### [LOW IMPACT] ...
## Alternative Approaches Considered
| Approach | Pros | Cons | Verdict |
|----------|------|------|---------|
| ... | ... | ... | Keep/Replace/Explore further |
## What Would Change This Assessment
- If [X] is true, then [recommendation Y changes]
- [Unvalidated assumption that matters]
Bundled Resources
references/debiasing.md — Detailed debiasing techniques and prompts per perspective type
agents/perspective.md — Instructions for subagents running individual perspective analyses
agents/synthesizer.md — Instructions for a synthesis subagent combining multiple perspective outputs
1---2name: council3description: Get objective, unbiased analysis of your codebase, project, or documentation. Use when you need fresh eyes on a problem, want to challenge existing assumptions, need multiple perspectives on architecture or approach, or feel stuck in the current implementation. This skill deliberately avoids "existing code bias" by using debiasing techniques, multiple viewpoints, and structured synthesis. Perfect for: evaluating if your current approach is still optimal, exploring alternatives, identifying hidden assumptions, getting objective feedback before major refactors, or when AI tools keep echoing back your existing patterns. Trigger when user mentions: "is this still the best approach", "evaluate my architecture", "challenge my assumptions", "look at this objectively", "what am I missing", "are there better alternatives", "help me think outside the box", or similar requests for unbiased analysis. Also use when user wants multiple perspectives on a decision, needs to validate ideas against different mental models, or 4---56# Council — Multi-Perspective Analysis78A multi-perspective analysis framework that provides objective, debiased evaluation of9codebases, projects, and documentation. Uses multiple viewpoints and debiasing techniques10to overcome the tendency to anchor on existing code.1112## The Problem This Solves1314AI tools (and humans) tend to anchor on existing code. They see what IS and struggle to15imagine what COULD BE. They validate rather than explore. Council uses:16171. **Debiasing techniques** — Methods that force fresh thinking182. **Multiple perspectives** — Different mental models that catch different things193. **Structured synthesis** — Combining insights while tracking disagreements2021## When to Use2223- Evaluating if current approach is still optimal24- Exploring alternatives to existing implementation25- Identifying hidden assumptions in your project26- Getting objective feedback before major decisions27- When stuck in local optimum28- When you suspect there might be a better way but can't see it29- When AI tools keep echoing back your existing patterns3031## Input3233User provides:34- **Target**: Repository path, documentation, or specific problem description35- **Goal** (optional): What success looks like (e.g., "maximize profitability")36- **Constraints** (optional): What must be preserved (e.g., "must use existing data model")3738## Execution Flow3940### Phase 1: Scout4142Read and understand the target thoroughly. Document:43- What the project does44- How it's currently structured45- What constraints exist46- What the stated goals are4748**Do NOT form opinions yet.** Just gather facts.4950### Phase 2: Generate Perspectives5152Select 3-5 relevant perspectives based on the target:5354| Perspective | Focus | Best For |55|-------------|-------|----------|56| **Architect** | Structure, patterns, coupling, cohesion | System design, refactoring |57| **Challenger** | Assumptions, risks, alternatives | Decision validation, risk mitigation |58| **Opportunist** | New tech, shortcuts, simplification | Optimization, debt reduction |59| **Security** | Trust boundaries, failure modes | Safety, reliability |60| **Economist** | Cost, complexity, ROI | Resource allocation, prioritization |61| **User** | Usability, value, friction | UX, product decisions |62| **Archaeologist** | Legacy, debt, history | Understanding, migration |63| **Futurist** | Trends, scaling, evolution | Long-term planning |6465**For complex targets**, use `spawn_agents` to run perspectives in parallel — each agent66works independently to avoid groupthink, then results combine in Phase 3.6768**For simpler targets**, run perspectives sequentially in a single agent.6970Each perspective applies these debiasing techniques:71721. **Fresh Eyes Mode**: Deliberately ignore the existing implementation. Ask: "What would I build if starting from zero, knowing only the goal?"732. **Challenge Mode**: Question every assumption. Why does this component exist? What if we removed it? What if the opposite were true?743. **Rebuild Mode**: "If I had to solve this from scratch with today's knowledge, what would I do differently?"7576See `references/debiasing.md` for detailed debiasing techniques and prompts.7778### Phase 3: Synthesize7980Combine perspectives into structured output:81821. **Agreements**: What multiple perspectives agree on (high confidence)832. **Disagreements**: Where perspectives conflict (dig deeper — these reveal tradeoffs)843. **Novel Insights**: Things only one perspective caught854. **Prioritized Recommendations**: Ranked by impact and confidence8687See `agents/synthesizer.md` for detailed synthesis instructions when using subagents.8889### Phase 4: Validate9091- Check that recommendations don't contradict each other92- Flag any assumptions that weren't validated93- Identify what information would change conclusions9495## Output Format9697```markdown98# Council Report: [Target]99100## Executive Summary101[2-3 sentence objective assessment — not a summary of what was done, but a verdict]102103## Key Findings104105### [Finding Name]106- **What**: [Clear description of the finding]107- **Perspectives that agree**: [List]108- **Perspectives that disagree**: [List + brief reason]109- **Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low]110- **Evidence**: [Specific file:line, metric, or observation]111112## Recommendations113114### [HIGH IMPACT] [Recommendation Title]115- **Problem addressed**: [The finding this fixes]116- **Solution**: [Concrete action]117- **Expected impact**: [What improves and by how much]118- **Effort**: [Low/Medium/High]119- **Risk**: [Low/Medium/High]120- **Perspectives supporting**: [List]121122### [MEDIUM IMPACT] ...123124### [LOW IMPACT] ...125126## Alternative Approaches Considered127128| Approach | Pros | Cons | Verdict |129|----------|------|------|---------|130| ... | ... | ... | Keep/Replace/Explore further |131132## What Would Change This Assessment133- If [X] is true, then [recommendation Y changes]134- [Unvalidated assumption that matters]135```136137## Bundled Resources138139- `references/debiasing.md` — Detailed debiasing techniques and prompts per perspective type140- `agents/perspective.md` — Instructions for subagents running individual perspective analyses141- `agents/synthesizer.md` — Instructions for a synthesis subagent combining multiple perspective outputs