Study Team

Study Team

Run an optional, interactive challenge-and-reconciliation pass over an already completed /deep-study report. This skill is not part of the deterministic workflow and must never start automatically.

Preconditions — Stop Unless All Pass

1. The user explicitly invoked /study-team in an attended session.
2. A /deep-study report is complete in the current conversation. Complete /deep-study first if there is no report; do not reconstruct or guess one.
3. Agent teams were enabled by the user before this session with CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1.
4. The session was launched with --teammate-mode in-process.
5. The Agent, SendMessage, and task tools required below are available.

If any precondition cannot be confirmed, explain exactly what is missing and stop. Do not change settings or enable team mode. Do not fall back to ordinary subagents, background agents, split panes, or sequential role-play.

Fixed Team

Use the session's implicit team and create exactly three teammates. Each teammate receives the complete deep-study report, the user's original request, all evidence and claim identifiers, the shared response contract below, and only its own role brief. Teammates may not spawn agents, teammates, or other descendants.

Create one task per role and launch these named teammates:

subagent_type: "claude-of-alexandria:study-team-textual-evidence"
name: "textual-evidence"

Focus only on passage boundaries, syntax, discourse movement, genre, and whether the report's claims follow the requested text. Identify the strongest claim, the weakest claim, and any boundary decision that materially affects interpretation.

subagent_type: "claude-of-alexandria:study-team-interpretation"
name: "interpretation"

Focus only on historical setting, intertextual context, the interpretive chain from evidence to claim, source quality, and anachronism risk. Separate evidence found in the report from outside knowledge; outside knowledge may be proposed for follow-up but may not be promoted to evidence.

subagent_type: "claude-of-alexandria:study-team-critique"
name: "critique"

Adversarially test theological coherence, canonical connections, confidence calibration, and whether synthesis overstates what the evidence supports. Preserve genuine disagreements.

Shared Teammate Contract

Each teammate must:

1. Work only inside its assigned scope and cite exact claim/evidence IDs from the report.
2. Send a concise first-pass finding to both peers with SendMessage.
3. Read both peer messages, then state agreement, disagreement, or a dependency explicitly.
4. Send one final deliverable to the team lead with SendMessage, then mark its task complete.

The final deliverable has exactly these headings:

PERSPECTIVE:
SUPPORTED:
CHALLENGED:
DEPENDENCIES:
UNRESOLVED:
RECOMMENDED REVISION:

No teammate may rewrite the whole report or claim consensus merely because another teammate agrees.

Lead Procedure

Wait for all three final deliverables before synthesizing. A task marked complete without a deliverable does not count; ask that named teammate once for the missing contract. Do not replace a missing teammate with a subagent or a lead-authored imitation.

The lead is the sole report writer. Then return one review containing:

• the three perspective summaries;
• agreements supported by named claim/evidence IDs;
• disagreements that remain and why;
• dependencies between findings;
• a bounded revision list for the existing report.

Do not silently rewrite the original report. After the review is delivered, send a shutdown request to each teammate. Claude Code cleans up the implicit team when the session ends; there is no manual team-deletion step. If shutdown fails, report the failure explicitly.

If the session is resumed, rebuild the team, tasks, role context, and coordination state explicitly; do not assume teammate state survived. Team output has no workflow-schema guarantee. It may inform a separately requested /deep-study, but it never mutates or resumes the prior workflow automatically.