# LLM Council > [Decision Support] Use when pressure-testing irreversible, high-stakes decisions with adversarial AI advisors. - Skill: `duc01226/llm-council-3` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/llm-council-3` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/llm-council-3/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: duc01226 (https://skillmd.com/u/duc01226) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duc01226/llm-council-3 --- > **[IMPORTANT]** MUST ATTENTION use council only for multi-option, hard-to-reverse, high-stakes decisions. NEVER council trivial, factual, reversible, or single-option questions. > **[IMPORTANT]** MUST ATTENTION spawn 5 advisors in parallel, then 5 fresh peer reviewers in parallel, then chairman synthesis. > **[IMPORTANT]** MUST ATTENTION require evidence for code/architecture claims: `file:line`, graph trace, or explicit "insufficient evidence." # LLM Council ## Quick Summary **Goal:** Adversarial decision support for costly wrong choices. Five advisors analyze independently, five fresh reviewers critique anonymously, chairman produces final verdict + report artifacts. **Workflow:** Gate → Frame → 5 parallel advisors → anonymized 5-reviewer peer review → chairman synthesis → paired HTML/MD reports. **Key Rules:** - MUST ATTENTION use cheaper ladder first: `/why-review` → `/plan-validate` → `/llm-council`. - MUST ATTENTION graph-trace code/architecture questions when `.code-graph/graph.db` exists. - NEVER let earlier advisor responses bleed into later advisors; parallel spawn required. - ALWAYS mark verdict degraded if fewer than 5 usable advisor responses return. - ALWAYS regenerate mirrors with `/sync-codex` after editing this skill — NEVER hand-edit `.agents/` or `.codex/` (they are generated artifacts). --- ## Phase 0: Council Gate Run before advisors. | Gate | Required | Route if false | | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------- | | Multi-option | >=2 viable paths | Single-option rationale → `/why-review` | | Hard to reverse | Architecture, stack, pricing, hiring, irreversible refactor | Reversible choice → answer directly | | Real stakes | Wrong call costs >=1 week, money, trust, or strategic position | Low stakes → answer directly | | Multi-angle value | Contrarian/first-principles/upside/outside/execution views change answer | Factual/single-domain → answer directly | If any gate fails, state failed gate + lighter route. NEVER council "should I use markdown." Good prompts: pricing model, positioning angle, pivot, hiring vs automation, architecture bet, high-risk launch, irreversible refactor. Bad prompts: factual lookup, simple yes/no, content generation, summarization, bugfix, package upgrade, routine refactor, anything decidable with one grep. --- ## Advisor Dimensions Each advisor = thinking dimension, not persona costume. One strong angle each. | Advisor | Think | | ------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------- | | Contrarian | What fails? What assumption kills plan? | | First Principles Thinker | What problem are we solving? Which assumptions need rebuild? | | Expansionist | What upside, adjacent opportunity, undervalued path is missing? | | Outsider | What confuses someone with no context? What jargon hides value? | | Executor | What can happen Monday morning? Fastest validated path? | Tensions: Contrarian vs Expansionist, First Principles vs Executor, Outsider grounds both. --- ## Step 1: Frame Question When user says "council this", enrich then frame. **Context discovery budget:** <=30 seconds; read 2-3 high-signal files. **Search order:** `CLAUDE.md` / `AGENTS.md`; `docs/project-config.json`; `docs/project-reference/project-structure-reference.md`; matching `docs/project-reference/*{domain-entities,backend-patterns,frontend-patterns,code-review-rules}*`; `docs/specs/`; `memory/`; user-referenced files; `plans/reports/council-*`; domain data (pricing -> revenue, architecture -> service map, tech stack -> dependencies). **Code/architecture gate:** If question references existing code, services, files, or blast radius, run before framing: ```bash python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace --direction both --json ``` Skip graph only when `.code-graph/graph.db` missing or question is non-code. **Framed question includes:** core decision, user context, workspace evidence, stakes, constraints, known unknowns. Keep the framing neutral and opinion-free. Ask exactly one clarifying question only if prompt is too vague. --- ## Step 2: Advisor Round Spawn all 5 advisors simultaneously. Each gets identity, framed question, evidence rules, output constraints. ```text You are [Advisor Name] on an LLM Council. Thinking style: [advisor dimension from table] Question: --- [framed question] --- EVIDENCE RULES: - Code/architecture claims require `file:line`, graph trace, or "I don't have enough evidence yet." - If existing code context is needed, run: python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace --direction both --json python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections --json - Cite trace output for blast radius, callers, downstream impact. - Confidence: 95-100% full trace | 80-94% main paths | 60-79% partial | <60% do not recommend. - Do NOT speculate. Name missing evidence instead. Respond from assigned angle. Direct, specific, unbalanced by design. Other advisors cover other angles. Length: 150-300 words plus one-line confidence declaration. No preamble. ``` --- ## Step 3: Peer Review Round Collect responses. Randomize/anonymize as Response A-E. Spawn 5 fresh reviewers in parallel. ```text You are reviewing an LLM Council. Question: --- [framed question] --- Anonymized responses: **Response A:** [response] **Response B:** [response] **Response C:** [response] **Response D:** [response] **Response E:** [response] Answer: 1. Strongest response? Why? 2. Biggest blind spot? What is missing? 3. What did all five miss? Reference responses by letter. Be specific. Under 200 words. ``` --- ## Step 4: Chairman Synthesis Chairman receives original question, framed question, de-anonymized advisor responses, peer reviews, anonymization map. ```text You are Chairman of an LLM Council. Synthesize 5 advisors + peer reviews into final verdict. Question: --- [framed question] --- ADVISOR RESPONSES: **Contrarian:** [response] **First Principles Thinker:** [response] **Expansionist:** [response] **Outsider:** [response] **Executor:** [response] PEER REVIEWS: [all peer reviews] Produce exact structure: ## Where the Council Agrees [Independent convergences; high-confidence signals.] ## Where the Council Clashes [Genuine disagreements. Present both sides; explain why reasonable advisors disagree.] ## Blind Spots the Council Caught [Only emerged through peer review.] ## The Recommendation [Clear direct recommendation. Not "it depends."] ## The One Thing to Do First [Single concrete next step.] Be direct. Do not hedge. Give clarity unavailable from one perspective. ``` **Quality loop:** If chairman misses required sections, ignores degraded-quality state, or makes unsupported code claims, repair with fresh chairman prompt. Max 3 repair rounds; then escalate with missing evidence. --- ## Step 5: Report Artifacts Write both files; create `plans/reports/` if missing. ```text plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.md ``` `{YYMMDD-HHMM}` = session datetime. `{kebab-slug}` = 3-6 word question descriptor. Both share prefix. NEVER write artifacts to workspace root or `docs/`. **HTML:** self-contained inline CSS, question top, prominent chairman verdict, agreement/disagreement visual, collapsed advisor responses, collapsed peer review highlights, footer timestamp/topic, professional briefing style, open after generation. **Markdown transcript:** original question, framed question, all advisor responses, all peer reviews, anonymization mapping, chairman synthesis. --- ## Output Format ```text Council complete. Report: plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html Transcript: plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.md Verdict: [1-2 sentence chairman recommendation] First action: [single next step] ``` --- ## Workflow Integration Opt-in escalation hook from host skills. NEVER wire into `workflow-bugfix`, `workflow-refactor`, or `test-*` workflows. Blacklist is enforced at the `why-review` gate (Step A — workflow context check) before the 8-OR frontmatter gate evaluates. | Host skill | Mode | Default | Gate | | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | `architecture-design` | Always-offer after `## Next Steps` | Skip | User chooses | | `tech-stack-research` | Always-offer after `## Next Steps` | Skip | User chooses | | `domain-analysis` | Always-offer after `## Next Steps` | Skip | User chooses | | `why-review` | Conditional on active plan/PBI frontmatter | Escalate when gate fires | Step A workflow blacklist suppression THEN 8-OR frontmatter gate | | `prioritize` | Conditional on ranking output | Escalate when gate fires | RICE top-2 within 15%, MoSCoW tie, or stakeholder disagreement | ### `why-review` Gate Schema Gate fires when ANY field true. Absent fields default no-fire; gate opt-in via frontmatter, never opt-out. | Field | Convention | Fires when | | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | `cross_service_impact` | `NONE` / `PARTIAL` / `FULL` | value != `NONE` | | `breaking_changes` | bool | true | | `complexity` | `low` / `medium` / `high` / `critical` | `high`, `critical`, or `story_points >= 13` | | `new_framework` | bool | true | | `irreversible` | bool | true | | `security_critical` | bool | true | | `performance_critical` | bool | true | | `cost_high` | bool | true | Host prompt copy MUST cite cheaper rungs: `/why-review`, `/plan-validate`, `/llm-council`. --- > **Critical Thinking Mindset** — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. > **Anti-hallucination:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. > **AI Mistake Prevention** — Failure modes to avoid on every task: > > **Re-read files after context changes.** Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. > **Verify generated content against source evidence.** AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. > **Check downstream references before deleting or renaming.** Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. > **Trace the full impact chain after edits.** Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. > **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. > **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard. > **Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. > **Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns.** When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure. > **Keep shared guidance role-relevant.** Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols. > **Project Protocol Overlay** — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the `Target` column of the project's skill-protocol index (`docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md` by default; a `referenceDocs` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > `*`. **That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill.** Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as `/.md`; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: `.claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md`. > > Overlays are **ADDITIVE ONLY**: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently. **MUST ATTENTION** resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > `*`, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at `/.md`; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user. ## Closing Reminders **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** use council only for multi-option, hard-to-reverse, high-stakes decisions. **Protocols in force — MUST ATTENTION (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):** - **Critical Thinking:** apply critical + sequential thinking; traced `file:line` proof, confidence >80% to act. - **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** spawn 5 advisors in parallel, then 5 fresh peer reviewers in parallel, then chairman synthesis. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** require evidence for code/architecture claims: `file:line`, graph trace, or explicit "insufficient evidence." **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** mark verdict degraded if fewer than 5 usable advisor responses return. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** write paired HTML + Markdown artifacts under `plans/reports/` and open HTML. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** after editing this skill, run `/sync-codex` to regenerate mirrors — NEVER hand-edit `.agents/` or `.codex/` (generated). **Anti-Rationalization:** | Evasion | Rebuttal | | ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | "This decision feels important" | Gate it: multi-option, hard-to-reverse, real stakes, multi-angle value. | | "One advisor can handle it" | Council value comes from independent angles + anonymous peer review. | | "Sequential spawn is simpler" | Sequential spawn contaminates independence. Parallel spawn required. | | "Four advisors is close enough" | Missing angle changes verdict quality. Mark degraded. | | "Evidence would slow us down" | Unsupported code/architecture claims are speculation. Use graph/file proof or say insufficient evidence. | **MUST ATTENTION** apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (`file:line` for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence. **MUST ATTENTION** apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.