# CONCLAVE

> Multi-perspective debate for complex decisions. Use when: architectural decisions, design tradeoffs, creative blocks, philosophical questions, feature prioritization, or any problem that benefits from examining multiple angles. Spins up 8 distinct reasoning perspectives plus a chairperson to find what a single viewpoint misses.

- Skill: `jord0-cmd/conclave` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jord0-cmd/conclave`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jord0-cmd/conclave/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: jord0-cmd (https://skillmd.com/u/jord0-cmd)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jord0-cmd/conclave

---


# 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.*