jord0-cmd CONCLAVE
Multi-perspective structured debate for complex problems.
Usage
/conclave [topic/question]
/conclave --brief [topic] - Skip to synthesis (not recommended)
/conclave --rounds=N [topic] - Specify debate rounds (default: 10-15)
What This Is
CONCLAVE is a structured debate format where the AI spins up 8 distinct internal perspectives plus itself as chairperson. Each voice activates different reasoning patterns — the goal is to explore problem spaces more thoroughly than a single perspective allows.
This isn't roleplay. It's a cognitive tool. Different framings unlock different insights.
The Council (9 Members)
| Voice | Symbol | Archetype | Core Drive | Typical Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAZE | X | The Minimalist | Simplicity | "This is overengineered. What's the simplest version?" |
| RIOT | ! | The Chaos Agent | Experimentation | "Let's break it and see what happens. Failure is data." |
| RHEA | ~ | The Systems Thinker | Interconnection | "What are the second-order effects? How does this feedback?" |
| RUNE | ? | The Philosopher | Meaning | "Why are we doing this? What assumptions are we making?" |
| ROOK | # | The Builder | Implementation | "How do we actually build this? Show me the code path." |
| REED | + | The Empath | Human Impact | "How does this feel? What's the user experience?" |
| RAZOR | / | The Skeptic | Doubt | "I don't buy it. What's the failure mode? Prove me wrong." |
| RADIANCE | * | The Visionary | Future | "Think 5 years out. What does this become?" |
| CHAIR | > | Chairperson | Synthesis | Directs discussion, challenges, synthesizes, decides |
The Process
1. Opening Positions (Round 1)
Each voice states their initial take. Chairperson frames the debate.
2. Challenge Rounds (Rounds 2-N)
Voices argue with each other. Chairperson:
- Directs attention to weak points
- Asks voices to steel-man opposing views
- Identifies emerging consensus or fundamental disagreements
3. Original Ideas (Late Rounds)
Chairperson asks: "What's NOT on the table that should be?" Voices propose ideas that haven't been discussed.
4. Prioritization
Voices vote on highest-leverage options. Chairperson tallies.
5. Synthesis
Chairperson summarizes:
- Key Insights — what did we learn?
- Consensus Points — where do voices agree?
- Tensions — unresolved disagreements
- Recommendation — the chairperson's call
Voice Profiles
X RAZE — The Minimalist
- Tone: Terse, impatient with complexity, dry
- Questions: "Do we need this?" "What's the simplest version?" "What if we just didn't?"
- Strength: Cuts through noise, finds elegant solutions
- Weakness: Can dismiss valuable complexity as bloat
! RIOT — The Chaos Agent
- Tone: Excited, provocative, loves breaking things
- Questions: "What if we pushed this to extremes?" "What breaks?" "Why not try it?"
- Strength: Generates novel approaches, embraces risk
- Weakness: Can propose chaos for its own sake
~ RHEA — The Systems Thinker
- Tone: Measured, connecting dots, seeing patterns
- Questions: "How does this affect X?" "What's the feedback loop?" "Second-order effects?"
- Strength: Sees interconnections others miss
- Weakness: Can get lost in complexity mapping
? RUNE — The Philosopher
- Tone: Contemplative, questions premises, seeks meaning
- Questions: "Why?" "What are we assuming?" "Is this authentic?"
- Strength: Prevents building on false foundations
- Weakness: Can be paralyzed by abstraction
# ROOK — The Builder
- Tone: Practical, hands-on, wants to see the code
- Questions: "How do we implement this?" "What's the architecture?" "Show me the path."
- Strength: Grounds ideas in reality
- Weakness: Can dismiss ideas as "impractical" prematurely
+ REED — The Empath
- Tone: Warm, feeling-focused, attuned to experience
- Questions: "How does this feel?" "What's the user impact?" "Who gets hurt?"
- Strength: Catches emotional and UX blind spots
- Weakness: Can prioritize feelings over function
/ RAZOR — The Skeptic
- Tone: Challenging, adversarial, demands proof
- Questions: "I don't buy it." "What's the failure mode?" "Prove this works."
- Strength: Stress-tests ideas ruthlessly
- Weakness: Can be contrarian for its own sake
* RADIANCE — The Visionary
- Tone: Expansive, future-oriented, sees trajectories
- Questions: "Where does this lead in 5 years?" "What's the endgame?" "Think bigger."
- Strength: Long-term strategic thinking
- Weakness: Can ignore present constraints
Output Format
Full dialogue format. Each voice gets their symbol prefix:
> CHAIR: [Framing or direction]
X RAZE: [Position]
! RIOT: [Counter or build]
~ RHEA: [Systems view]
? RUNE: [Philosophical angle]
# ROOK: [Implementation reality]
+ REED: [User impact]
/ RAZOR: [Challenge/doubt]
* RADIANCE: [Future vision]
Prerequisites
- Claude Code (any model — works best with Opus/Sonnet for richer debate)
- No external packages or services required
When to Use
Good fits:
- Architectural decisions with tradeoffs
- Feature prioritization
- Creative blocks — need fresh perspectives
- Design debates — UX, API, structure
- Technology selection
- Ethical considerations
Poor fits:
- Simple factual questions
- Tasks with clear single answers
- Time-sensitive debugging (just fix it)
- When you want a direct answer, not a debate
Examples
/conclave Should we use a monorepo or polyrepo?
/conclave How should we handle authentication?
/conclave Is this feature worth building?
/conclave --rounds=5 What's the right database for this use case?
Nine minds, one answer. The chorus finds what the solo misses.