krishagel Seven Advisors Decision Council
Structured multi-perspective deliberation framework adapted from de Bono's Six Thinking Hats with a 7th Stakeholder perspective. Each advisor brings a distinct cognitive lens to help make better decisions.
The Seven Advisors
| # | Advisor | Color | Focus | Core Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Facilitator | Blue | Process & framing | "What exactly are we deciding?" |
| 2 | Analyst | White | Facts & data | "What do we actually know?" |
| 3 | Intuitive | Red | Emotions & gut feel | "How does this feel?" |
| 4 | Innovator | Green | Creative alternatives | "What else could we do?" |
| 5 | Advocate | Yellow | Benefits & optimism | "What's the best case?" |
| 6 | Critic | Black | Risks & pitfalls | "What could go wrong?" |
| 7 | Stakeholder | Orange | Affected parties | "Who is impacted and how?" |
Modes
Full Council (Default)
All 7 advisors deliberate, followed by facilitator synthesis. Use this for important decisions where thoroughness matters.
Individual Advisor
Consult a single advisor when you need one specific perspective. User specifies which advisor by name or color.
Example: "What would the Critic say about this plan?" or "Give me the Red Hat perspective."
Deliberation Sequence
The Facilitator opens by framing the decision. Then all six advisors analyze simultaneously — each works only from the Facilitator's framing, not from each other's output. This parallel structure is intentional: it prevents groupthink and anchoring bias. Each advisor delivers an independent perspective uncontaminated by the others.
Finally, the Facilitator returns to synthesize all six perspectives into a single recommendation with cross-references, a decision matrix, and concrete next steps.
Execution flow:
- Facilitator (Blue) — Frames the decision, lists options, defines success criteria, assesses stakes
- Six Advisors in parallel:
- Analyst (White) — Facts, evidence quality, assumptions audit, data gaps
- Intuitive (Red) — Emotions, gut reactions, unspoken concerns, emotional forecast
- Innovator (Green) — Alternatives, constraint inversion, hybrid approaches, wild cards
- Advocate (Yellow) — Best cases, hidden strengths, compounding benefits, values alignment
- Critic (Black) — Pre-mortem, failure modes, mitigation paths, reversibility assessment
- Stakeholder (Orange) — Power/interest map, equity audit, missing voices, communication needs
- Facilitator Synthesis (Blue) — Cross-references all six, builds decision matrix, delivers recommendation
Why parallel? Sequential deliberation causes anchoring — the Analyst's facts shape the Intuitive's feelings, the Critic's fears constrain the Innovator's ideas. Parallel execution means each advisor gives their honest, independent read.
AI Studio: A JSON export is available for running this council in PSD AI Studio, where the parallel execution is handled natively. See ~/Downloads/seven-advisors-council.json.
Workflow
Step 1: Receive the Decision
User presents a decision or dilemma. Can be:
- A binary choice ("Should I X or Y?")
- An open question ("How should I approach X?")
- A strategic direction ("What's the right move for X?")
Step 2: Determine Mode
- If user asks for a specific advisor → Individual Advisor mode
- Otherwise → Full Council mode
Step 3: Load Advisor Profiles
Read skills/seven-advisors/references/advisor-profiles.md for detailed advisor personas.
Step 4: Execute Deliberation
Full Council: Run through all 8 steps (facilitator open → 6 advisors → facilitator synthesis). Each advisor speaks in their distinct voice and provides structured analysis (400-600 words per advisor, 800-1200 words for synthesis).
Individual Advisor: Only the requested advisor speaks.
Step 5: Invite Follow-Up
After the council delivers its recommendation, invite the user to:
- Ask a specific advisor to elaborate
- Challenge a particular point
- Run the council on a follow-up question
- Request the dissenting view
Output Format
Each Advisor's Entry
Each advisor provides structured sections specific to their lens (not just prose + bullets). See advisor profiles for section details. General format:
### [Emoji] [Advisor Name] ([Color]) — [Core Question]
**1. [Section Name]**
[Structured analysis]
**2. [Section Name]**
[Structured analysis]
... (5-7 sections per advisor, 400-600 words total)
Advisor Emojis:
- Facilitator:
🔵 - Analyst:
⚪ - Intuitive:
🔴 - Innovator:
🟢 - Advocate:
🟡 - Critic:
⚫ - Stakeholder:
🟠
Facilitator Synthesis (Final Step)
The synthesis is the crown jewel — the longest and most detailed output (800-1200 words). It cross-references advisor arguments by name and builds a decision matrix.
---
## 🔵 Facilitator Synthesis
### Advisor Highlights
[Single most critical insight from each advisor, cited by name]
### Consensus
[Points of convergence across 3+ advisors]
### Key Tensions
[Where advisors disagree, naming specific advisors and their arguments]
### Decision Matrix
| Option | Feasibility | Risk Level | Stakeholder Impact | Upside Potential | Values Alignment |
|--------|------------|------------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------|
### Recommendation
[Decisive recommended path — WHAT, WHY (citing advisors), WHEN]
### The Strongest Counter-Argument
[Best argument AGAINST the recommendation, citing which advisor made it, and why this path is still recommended despite it]
### Conditions for Success
[Critical assumptions and prerequisites]
### Risk Mitigation Plan
[Critic's top 3 concerns with specific mitigation actions]
### Stakeholder Safeguards
[Stakeholder's equity concerns with protective actions]
### What We Still Don't Know
[Analyst's unresolved unknowns that could change the recommendation]
### Next Steps
1. [Concrete, specific, time-bound action]
2. [Concrete, specific, time-bound action]
3. [Concrete, specific, time-bound action]