Council
A 5-advisor decision council with anonymous peer review and chairman
synthesis. Inspired by Andrej Karpathy's LLM Council concept and Ole
Lehmann's implementation. Upgraded with full ecosystem integration.
How to use
/council <question or decision> — run the full 5-advisor council.- Trigger phrases (case-insensitive, start of message):
council this: <question>war room this: <question>pressure-test this: <question>
When to use
- A strategic decision with significant consequences.
- A go / no-go that needs multi-perspective pressure testing.
- Architecture or product direction choices that need adversarial review.
- Any decision where hidden risks or missed opportunities could be costly.
- Explicit user trigger.
Required input contract
Before running Phase 0, identify:
- The decision — clearly stated, not implied.
- Stakeholder — who will act on the recommendation.
- Decision shape — binary go/no-go, A-vs-B, multi-option, or strategic stance.
- Reversibility — can the decision be undone if wrong?
- Time horizon — Monday-morning action, or longer planning cycle?
If the decision shape or stakeholder is unclear, ask one sharp question
before running Phase 0.
Protocol — six phases in order
When triggered, execute ALL phases in order. Never skip any phase.
| Phase |
Output |
| 0. Intelligence gathering |
Intelligence Brief (≤ 300 words) covering Domain, Hard Data, Prior Decisions, Known Context, Data Gaps |
| 1. Context extraction |
2-3 sentence decision summary |
| 2. Five advisors |
300-600 word response per advisor, each referencing Intelligence Brief |
| 3. Anonymization + peer review |
5 reviewers answer Q1 (strongest), Q2 (biggest blind spot), Q3 (collective miss) |
| 4. Chairman synthesis |
Executive Summary, Recommendation, Confidence, Next Step, Risks, Opportunities |
| 5. Output |
HTML report + Obsidian note (if vault) + Markdown transcript |
| 6. Follow-up |
TaskCreate + memory record + report path |
Full per-phase procedure: references/council-workflow.md.
The five advisors (decision-critical routing)
Each advisor produces a 300-600 word response that must reference the
Intelligence Brief. Generic advice is unacceptable.
| # |
Advisor |
Stance |
Signature question |
| 1 |
Contrarian |
Assumes there IS a hidden disaster; digs until found or proven absent |
"What will kill this that nobody is talking about?" |
| 2 |
First Principles Thinker |
Strips every assumption; rebuilds from foundations |
"What are we actually trying to achieve, and is this even the right question?" |
| 3 |
Expansionist |
Finds every adjacent opportunity, bigger version, multiplier |
"What's the 10x version of this, and what are you leaving on the table?" |
| 4 |
Outsider |
Zero prior knowledge; answers purely from what is written |
"Reading this cold — what makes no sense, what's unexplained, what would I ask?" |
| 5 |
Executor |
Demands concrete Monday-morning first steps |
"What exactly do you DO on Monday morning? If you can't answer that, this is vapor." |
The advisor lens is fixed. The domain (selected in Phase 0) determines
which data the lens is applied to. Never swap roles or collapse advisors —
divergence is the source of the council's value.
Full advisor profiles + per-domain specialization (engineering, trading,
strategy, product, etc.): references/roles-and-routing.md.
Decision logic — confidence scoring
| Score |
Threshold |
Conditions |
| HIGH |
> 85% |
Strong consensus, hard data supports, low downside if wrong |
| MEDIUM |
50–85% |
Split opinions or incomplete data; weight of evidence favors |
| LOW |
< 50% |
Genuine uncertainty; recommendation is best-guess; consider follow-up council |
Drop one band if: data gaps unresolved · Contrarian's flaw has no mitigation
· suspicious unanimous agreement · reviewer Q3 materially shifts the decision.
Full chairman synthesis structure + decision patterns (binary / A-vs-B /
multi-option / strategic) + dissent resolution: references/decision-frameworks-and-synthesis.md.
Authority, safety, truthfulness constraints
These are non-negotiable. Skipping any is grounds to rerun the phase.
- Phase 0 is mandatory. Advisors without data are just guessing.
- Peer review is mandatory. It catches groupthink — Q3 must always
surface at least one collective miss.
- Anonymization mapping is revealed ONLY at the very end of the transcript.
- Advisors must diverge. Two advisors with the same conclusion is
one wasted advisor — force the lens to apply harder.
- Every response references specific Intelligence Brief data. No
generic advice.
- Contrarian stays brutal. Their job is to find problems, not be polite.
- Executor demands concrete Monday-morning steps. "Think about X" is
not an answer — the recommendation is incomplete without a named action,
tool, person, and deliverable.
- HTML report MUST be written to disk. Not just displayed inline.
- Memory record MUST be created in Phase 6. Future councils build on it.
- Chairman picks a side. No "it depends", no "pros and cons", no
"depends on your goals". If the decision is bad, say so; if good, say so.
- Hermes multi-platform delivery is T2. Ask before sending.
Tone rules
- All advisors and reviewers: brutally honest, zero flattery, zero corporate
speak, no hedging.
- Chairman: decisive and neutral. Picks a side.
- Banned: "great question", "pros and cons to both", "ultimately it depends
on your goals".
Validation gates
A council run must clear all six gates before delivery.
| Gate |
Pass criterion |
| Phase 0 |
Brief ≤ 300 words; Data Gaps honest |
| Phase 1 |
Summary names core decision + stakeholder |
| Phase 2 |
Each advisor 300-600 words, references brief, no two converge |
| Phase 3 |
All 5 reviewers answered Q1/Q2/Q3; Q3 produced a collective miss |
| Phase 4 |
Recommendation specific; confidence rated; next step named |
| Phase 5 |
HTML on disk; transcript ends with mapping; Obsidian skipped silently if unreachable |
Full anti-pattern catalog + troubleshooting recipes + MCP-outage recovery:
references/validation-troubleshooting-and-antipatterns.md.
Output expectations
Three outputs, in this exact order:
- HTML report —
~/.claude/council-reports/council-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.html; self-contained inline styles; display inline too.
- Obsidian note (only if vault accessible) —
Council Reports/council-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md; skip silently on MCP failure.
- Markdown transcript — full raw transcript ending with the A-E mapping reveal.
Followed by Phase 6: TaskCreate from Executor's action, memory entity, report path surfaced. Full schemas + slug rules + worked run: references/examples.md.
Reference map
| Need |
Read |
| Full per-phase procedure (0-6) with domain table, MCP-source map, anonymization rules |
references/council-workflow.md |
| Five advisor profiles + per-domain specialization (engineering, trading, strategy, etc.) |
references/roles-and-routing.md |
| Chairman synthesis structure, confidence framework, decision patterns, dissent resolution |
references/decision-frameworks-and-synthesis.md |
| Validation gates per phase, anti-patterns with detection + remediation, recovery procedures |
references/validation-troubleshooting-and-antipatterns.md |
| Output schemas (HTML, Obsidian, transcript) + slug rules + complete worked run |
references/examples.md |
1---2name: council3description: High-stakes decision-making system with 5 advisors, anonymous peer review, and chairman synthesis. Activates on "council this", "war room this", or "pressure-test this". Outputs HTML report + markdown transcript. Saves to disk and optionally to Obsidian. Uses full ecosystem: MCP data gathering, semantic memory, sequential thinking, domain-aware advisors.4---56# Council78A 5-advisor decision council with anonymous peer review and chairman9synthesis. Inspired by Andrej Karpathy's LLM Council concept and Ole10Lehmann's implementation. Upgraded with full ecosystem integration.1112## How to use1314- `/council <question or decision>` — run the full 5-advisor council.15- Trigger phrases (case-insensitive, start of message):16 - `council this: <question>`17 - `war room this: <question>`18 - `pressure-test this: <question>`1920## When to use2122- A strategic decision with significant consequences.23- A go / no-go that needs multi-perspective pressure testing.24- Architecture or product direction choices that need adversarial review.25- Any decision where hidden risks or missed opportunities could be costly.26- Explicit user trigger.2728## Required input contract2930Before running Phase 0, identify:3132- **The decision** — clearly stated, not implied.33- **Stakeholder** — who will act on the recommendation.34- **Decision shape** — binary go/no-go, A-vs-B, multi-option, or strategic stance.35- **Reversibility** — can the decision be undone if wrong?36- **Time horizon** — Monday-morning action, or longer planning cycle?3738If the decision shape or stakeholder is unclear, ask one sharp question39before running Phase 0.4041## Protocol — six phases in order4243When triggered, execute ALL phases in order. **Never skip any phase.**4445| Phase | Output |46|-------|--------|47| 0. Intelligence gathering | Intelligence Brief (≤ 300 words) covering Domain, Hard Data, Prior Decisions, Known Context, Data Gaps |48| 1. Context extraction | 2-3 sentence decision summary |49| 2. Five advisors | 300-600 word response per advisor, each referencing Intelligence Brief |50| 3. Anonymization + peer review | 5 reviewers answer Q1 (strongest), Q2 (biggest blind spot), Q3 (collective miss) |51| 4. Chairman synthesis | Executive Summary, Recommendation, Confidence, Next Step, Risks, Opportunities |52| 5. Output | HTML report + Obsidian note (if vault) + Markdown transcript |53| 6. Follow-up | TaskCreate + memory record + report path |5455Full per-phase procedure: `references/council-workflow.md`.5657## The five advisors (decision-critical routing)5859Each advisor produces a 300-600 word response that **must reference the60Intelligence Brief**. Generic advice is unacceptable.6162| # | Advisor | Stance | Signature question |63|---|---------|--------|--------------------|64| 1 | **Contrarian** | Assumes there IS a hidden disaster; digs until found or proven absent | "What will kill this that nobody is talking about?" |65| 2 | **First Principles Thinker** | Strips every assumption; rebuilds from foundations | "What are we actually trying to achieve, and is this even the right question?" |66| 3 | **Expansionist** | Finds every adjacent opportunity, bigger version, multiplier | "What's the 10x version of this, and what are you leaving on the table?" |67| 4 | **Outsider** | Zero prior knowledge; answers purely from what is written | "Reading this cold — what makes no sense, what's unexplained, what would I ask?" |68| 5 | **Executor** | Demands concrete Monday-morning first steps | "What exactly do you DO on Monday morning? If you can't answer that, this is vapor." |6970The advisor lens is fixed. The **domain** (selected in Phase 0) determines71which data the lens is applied to. Never swap roles or collapse advisors —72divergence is the source of the council's value.7374Full advisor profiles + per-domain specialization (engineering, trading,75strategy, product, etc.): `references/roles-and-routing.md`.7677## Decision logic — confidence scoring7879| Score | Threshold | Conditions |80|-------|-----------|------------|81| **HIGH** | > 85% | Strong consensus, hard data supports, low downside if wrong |82| **MEDIUM** | 50–85% | Split opinions or incomplete data; weight of evidence favors |83| **LOW** | < 50% | Genuine uncertainty; recommendation is best-guess; consider follow-up council |8485Drop one band if: data gaps unresolved · Contrarian's flaw has no mitigation86· suspicious unanimous agreement · reviewer Q3 materially shifts the decision.8788Full chairman synthesis structure + decision patterns (binary / A-vs-B /89multi-option / strategic) + dissent resolution: `references/decision-frameworks-and-synthesis.md`.9091## Authority, safety, truthfulness constraints9293These are non-negotiable. Skipping any is grounds to rerun the phase.94951. **Phase 0 is mandatory.** Advisors without data are just guessing.962. **Peer review is mandatory.** It catches groupthink — Q3 must always97 surface at least one collective miss.983. **Anonymization mapping is revealed ONLY at the very end of the transcript.**994. **Advisors must diverge.** Two advisors with the same conclusion is100 one wasted advisor — force the lens to apply harder.1015. **Every response references specific Intelligence Brief data.** No102 generic advice.1036. **Contrarian stays brutal.** Their job is to find problems, not be polite.1047. **Executor demands concrete Monday-morning steps.** "Think about X" is105 not an answer — the recommendation is incomplete without a named action,106 tool, person, and deliverable.1078. **HTML report MUST be written to disk.** Not just displayed inline.1089. **Memory record MUST be created in Phase 6.** Future councils build on it.10910. **Chairman picks a side.** No "it depends", no "pros and cons", no110 "depends on your goals". If the decision is bad, say so; if good, say so.11111. **Hermes multi-platform delivery is T2.** Ask before sending.112113## Tone rules114115- All advisors and reviewers: brutally honest, zero flattery, zero corporate116 speak, no hedging.117- Chairman: decisive and neutral. Picks a side.118- Banned: "great question", "pros and cons to both", "ultimately it depends119 on your goals".120121## Validation gates122123A council run must clear all six gates before delivery.124125| Gate | Pass criterion |126|------|----------------|127| Phase 0 | Brief ≤ 300 words; Data Gaps honest |128| Phase 1 | Summary names core decision + stakeholder |129| Phase 2 | Each advisor 300-600 words, references brief, no two converge |130| Phase 3 | All 5 reviewers answered Q1/Q2/Q3; Q3 produced a collective miss |131| Phase 4 | Recommendation specific; confidence rated; next step named |132| Phase 5 | HTML on disk; transcript ends with mapping; Obsidian skipped silently if unreachable |133134Full anti-pattern catalog + troubleshooting recipes + MCP-outage recovery:135`references/validation-troubleshooting-and-antipatterns.md`.136137## Output expectations138139Three outputs, in this exact order:1401411. **HTML report** — `~/.claude/council-reports/council-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.html`; self-contained inline styles; display inline too.1422. **Obsidian note** (only if vault accessible) — `Council Reports/council-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md`; skip silently on MCP failure.1433. **Markdown transcript** — full raw transcript ending with the A-E mapping reveal.144145Followed by Phase 6: TaskCreate from Executor's action, memory entity, report path surfaced. Full schemas + slug rules + worked run: `references/examples.md`.146147## Reference map148149| Need | Read |150|------|------|151| Full per-phase procedure (0-6) with domain table, MCP-source map, anonymization rules | `references/council-workflow.md` |152| Five advisor profiles + per-domain specialization (engineering, trading, strategy, etc.) | `references/roles-and-routing.md` |153| Chairman synthesis structure, confidence framework, decision patterns, dissent resolution | `references/decision-frameworks-and-synthesis.md` |154| Validation gates per phase, anti-patterns with detection + remediation, recovery procedures | `references/validation-troubleshooting-and-antipatterns.md` |155| Output schemas (HTML, Obsidian, transcript) + slug rules + complete worked run | `references/examples.md` |
kmshihab7878