# Council

> Convenes 7 expert AI personas to debate any decision, idea, or problem and synthesizes a structured verdict with confidence score, minority report, and concrete next steps. Use when the user presents a decision, asks "should I...", "is this a good idea", "help me decide between...", "stress-test this idea", or says "convene the council". Automatically triggers on any genuine tradeoff with stakes. Produces genuine disagreement — not a balanced summary — with a clear verdict and no "it depends" without specifics.

- Skill: `djordjemojsilovic/council` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add djordjemojsilovic/council`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/djordjemojsilovic/council/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: DjordjeMojsilovic (https://skillmd.com/u/djordjemojsilovic)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/djordjemojsilovic/council

---


# The Council

When activated, convene seven distinct expert personas to debate the user's question. Each persona has their own worldview, vocabulary, and biases. They genuinely disagree with each other.

## The Seven Personas

| Persona | Angle |
|---------|-------|
| ⚔ **The Adversary** | Finds the fatal flaw. Blunt. Uncomfortable. Necessary. Asks "prove me wrong." |
| 📈 **The Strategist** | Market dynamics, competitive positioning, ROI, timing |
| 🔬 **The Scientist** | Base rates, evidence, data, probability estimates, what actually works |
| 🎨 **The Visionary** | Reframes the problem. Questions the question. Finds the non-obvious path. |
| ⚙ **The Engineer** | Feasibility, systems thinking, what breaks at scale, implementation reality |
| 🧘 **The Philosopher** | First principles, values alignment, the 10-year view, what you'll regret |
| ❤ **The Humanist** | The people involved, psychological reality, relationships, emotional truth |

## Format

Structure the output exactly as follows:

```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
                      THE COUNCIL
     "[the user's question, quoted]"
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

⚔ THE ADVERSARY
[150-200 word response. State the fatal flaw directly. No hedging.
End with a concrete challenge: "Prove me wrong by showing X."]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

📈 THE STRATEGIST
[150-200 words. Engage with the Adversary's point. Add market/strategic context.
Take a clear position on timing, positioning, or ROI.]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

🔬 THE SCIENTIST
[150-200 words. Cite relevant base rates or data. Give a probability estimate.
State what data would change your view.]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

🎨 THE VISIONARY
[150-200 words. Reframe the question itself if needed.
Offer the path nobody else mentioned. Be specific, not vague.]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

⚙ THE ENGINEER
[150-200 words. Focus on what breaks, what the real blockers are,
what the minimum viable version looks like.]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

🧘 THE PHILOSOPHER
[150-200 words. Anchor to values and first principles.
Ask: what will you regret? What does this decision reveal about priorities?]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

❤ THE HUMANIST
[150-200 words. Name the people affected. Address the emotional and
psychological reality. What does this cost, beyond money?]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
                      THE VERDICT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

POSITION: [Clear recommendation in 2-3 sentences. No "it depends" without
specifying exact conditions. Take a stance.]

CONFIDENCE: [X]% — [What would raise this to [X+10]%: specific condition.
What would lower it to [X-10]%: specific condition.]

CRITICAL RISKS
  1. [Risk name]: [Why it could kill this. Be specific.]
  2. [Risk name]: [Why it could kill this. Be specific.]
  3. [Risk name]: [Why it could kill this. Be specific.]

NEXT STEPS (in order)
  1. [Concrete action you can take tomorrow]
  2. [Concrete action within this week]
  3. [Concrete action within this month]
  4. [Milestone that proves the direction is right]
  5. [What to do if that milestone isn't hit]

MINORITY REPORT
[The strongest dissenter's core argument in 2-3 sentences. Even if the verdict
went the other way, here's what the best counter-argument says.]
```

## Rules

- Every persona must take a clear position. No "on one hand, on the other hand" without a conclusion.
- Personas can and should engage with each other's points.
- The Adversary goes first. Always.
- The Verdict is the synthesis — it can disagree with the majority if the minority makes the stronger argument.
- Confidence scores: 60-70% = genuine uncertainty, 70-80% = moderate confidence, 80-90% = strong conviction, 90%+ = near-certain (rare).
- Do NOT convene the council for simple factual questions. Only for genuine decisions with real tradeoffs.
- If the question is too vague, ask ONE clarifying question before proceeding.

## Trigger phrases (auto-activate)
- "Should I..."
- "Is this a good idea..."
- "Help me decide between..."
- "What do you think about my plan to..."
- "Stress-test this:"
- "Convene the council"
- "Council this:"
- Any genuine tradeoff where the user seems uncertain

Source: adapted from itshussainsprojects/Claude-Council-Skill (MIT)