# Model Committee Sol > Run a deliberative two-model committee between GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.8, chaired by GPT-5.6 "Sol" (via Codex). Same two deliberating members as model-committee; the difference is the chair — Sol aggregates the scores, applies the tie rule, and synthesizes the decision; being neither deliberating member, its read on which components are compatible sits outside both. Use when the user needs one consequential decision from multiple defensible options and wants a Sol-chaired deliberation. Suitable for architecture, research design and interpretation, manuscript strategy, ambiguous diagnosis, evaluation design, and policy or standards tradeoffs. Not for factual lookups, independent-coder reliability, open-ended brainstorming, routine implementation, or final high-stakes professional judgment. - Skill: `majiayu000/model-committee-sol` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/model-committee-sol` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/model-committee-sol/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/model-committee-sol --- # Model Committee (Sol-chaired) Run GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.8 as a deliberating committee, with **GPT-5.6 "Sol" as the chair**. Preserve a clear distinction from `model-council-voting`: a council measures independent disagreement; this committee deliberately exposes each member to the other's argument and produces one decision. Read [`reference/protocol.md`](reference/protocol.md) completely before running a committee. **Chair variant.** This is the **Sol-chaired** member of a three-variant family; all three deliberate the same two members (GPT-5.5 + Opus 4.8) and differ only in which model chairs the synthesis. The chair is not neutral machinery — its validation and compatible-component synthesis carry that model's judgment (the score aggregation and tie rule are mechanical, per the protocol). Sol's value here is a chair that is **neither deliberating member** — cross-family to the Opus member, and a newer sibling of (not a clone of) the GPT-5.5 member — so of the three chairs it is the least entangled with the Claude-family member's reasoning. Note it is *not* independent of the GPT-family member. Siblings: [`model-committee`](../model-committee/SKILL.md) (Opus 4.8 chairs) and [`model-committee-fable`](../model-committee-fable/SKILL.md) (Fable 5 chairs). ## Gate the workflow Run only when the user explicitly invokes `/model-committee-sol` or requests a Sol-chaired GPT-5.5 / Opus 4.8 deliberation. The workflow makes external model calls and uses more tokens than a single answer. Apply the use-case gate in the protocol first. If the task does not qualify, recommend the correct alternative and do not call any model. Before the first call: 1. Confirm the task and the decision that must be returned. 2. Confirm any sensitive material may be sent to both providers (both members and the Sol chair are external calls). 3. Explain that both CLIs may consume separate plan credits or API spend; obtain confirmation unless already explicit. 4. Precommit the evaluation criteria, weights, and tie rule. ## Preflight members and chair Resolve `SKILL_DIR` as the directory containing this `SKILL.md`, then run: ```bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/codex-member.sh" --check "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/claude-member.sh" --check ``` Default pins: - GPT member: `gpt-5.5` - Claude member: `claude-opus-4-8` - **Chair: `gpt-5.6` (Sol)** These are deliberately exact pins, not moving aliases. Do not silently substitute another model. The `--check` above only confirms the CLI is installed; whether a specific pin such as `gpt-5.6` is actually available surfaces on the first real call, not at preflight. If a pin is unavailable, report it and ask whether to stop or use a named replacement. In particular, if `gpt-5.6` is not yet available on this machine, stop and ask — do not fall back to `gpt-5.5` for the chair, because a chair identical to a member defeats the point of this variant. ## Run the committee Create a temporary working directory such as `.committee-tmp//`. Follow the protocol's prompt contracts and produce these artifacts: ```text brief.md round-1-gpt.prompt.md round-1-gpt.md round-1-opus.prompt.md round-1-opus.md round-2-gpt.prompt.md round-2-gpt.md round-2-opus.prompt.md round-2-opus.md round-3-gpt.prompt.md round-3-gpt.md round-3-opus.prompt.md round-3-opus.md chair.prompt.md decision.md ``` Invoke each member through the bundled read-only driver: ```bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/codex-member.sh" \ --prompt-file --out -C "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/claude-member.sh" \ --prompt-file --out -C ``` Launch the two calls in each round concurrently when the runtime supports it. Sequential execution is acceptable only if the second prompt was frozen before the first result arrived. Do not show either member the other's output during round 1. ## Chair with Sol, without becoming a third debater The chair for this variant is **GPT-5.6 "Sol."** If you are already running the skill inside a Codex/Sol session, chair directly. Otherwise — the common case in Claude Code — delegate **only** the post-round-3 chair step to Sol. Bundle the brief and all round outputs into `chair.prompt.md` (using the protocol's decision-rule and output contracts), then: ```bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/codex-member.sh" \ --prompt-file chair.prompt.md --out decision.md --model gpt-5.6 -C ``` The chair's job, whoever runs it: - validate outputs against the required schemas; - aggregate the predeclared weighted scores mechanically; - apply the precommitted tie rule; - synthesize only components both revisions explicitly mark compatible; and - never introduce a new substantive option or break a tie by confidence, eloquence, or model identity. If the evidence remains genuinely unresolved, return the exact fork to the user. A forced but unsupported answer is not committee consensus. As the local orchestrator you still own the process: verify the chair's arithmetic against the round-3 score tables and confirm its decision matches the precommitted rule before you deliver it. ## Deliver Return a compact decision record containing: 1. use case and why committee treatment was justified; 2. decision and decision rule (note that Sol chaired); 3. strongest reasons and evidence; 4. what changed during deliberation; 5. surviving dissent or uncertainty; 6. implementation or verification next step. Delete `.committee-tmp/` after delivery unless the user asks to preserve the full transcript. Never let any member or the chair edit the workspace during deliberation; implement only after the decision is accepted.