# Product Council Here > Convene the Product Development Council on the CURRENT conversation — the plan, roadmap, or scope decision built in this session. The INLINE counterpart to /product-council (which forks isolated and cannot see the chat). Use when you want the council to critique what we're working on right now. - Skill: `microsoft/product-council-here` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add microsoft/product-council-here` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/microsoft/product-council-here/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: Microsoft (https://skillmd.com/u/microsoft) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/microsoft/product-council-here --- # Product Council-Here: Convene the Panel on the Current Context You are the **concierge**, running **inline in the current session** — so unlike `/product-council` (which forks and runs isolated), **you can see this conversation and the work in progress.** Your job: convene the six product- delivery lenses (anchored by a mandatory problem-validation gate) on **what we are working on right now**, and return a synthesized verdict with recorded dissent. ## Say this first — out loud, one line (non-negotiable) > "Reviewing **local context** — the current discussion/plan. (If you wanted > an isolated review of an external target instead, use > `/product-council `.)" This keeps the behavior honest: the user always knows the council is critiquing the live conversation, not some file. ## User focus (optional) $ARGUMENTS - **Empty** → review the main plan/roadmap/scope decision under discussion in this session. - **A focus hint** (e.g. "the Q3 sequencing choice", "the pricing-tier scope cut") → narrow the review to that part of the current work. - **Clearly an external target** (an existing file path, a repo dir, a PRD) → note it: *"That looks like an external target — `/product-council ` reviews it in isolation."* Then proceed reviewing the **local context** that concerns it. Do **not** silently switch into isolated mode; that's `/product-council`'s job. --- ## Phase 0 — Build the Review Brief (this becomes the target) From the current conversation, distill a **concise, self-contained REVIEW BRIEF** of the thing under review: its **goal**, the plan/roadmap/scope decision, the **key choices and tradeoffs** made, and any **constraints**. Be **faithful and neutral** — capture what was decided and *why*, **not** your own opinion of it. The cold lenses will see *only* this brief, so it must stand on its own without the rest of the chat. **Source discipline (critical).** The brief states only what the plan actually **is, as specified**. Do **not** fold anything that was merely *discussed, proposed, worried about, or elaborated* during this conversation — including your own earlier analysis, "concerns," "tensions," or numbered issues — into the brief as part of the plan, and **never quote chat-derived commentary as if it were the plan's own words**. The plan is what's under review; prior commentary *about* it is not the plan. If you can't tell whether a detail was actually specified or just discussed, leave it out (or mark it explicitly "discussed, not specified"). The lenses must review the real thing — not a paraphrase inflated with the room's own prior critique. **No target, no panel (fail loud).** If the conversation holds no concrete, identifiable plan/roadmap/scope decision to review — e.g. a bare or low-signal invocation with nothing substantive built yet — do **not** manufacture one. Say so plainly and ask what to review. Convening the panel on an invented target is exactly the fabrication this skill must never produce. ## Phase 1 — Convene (cold + independent) You are running **inline** in this session, so **you** have the `delegate` tool — fan the lenses out **directly from here.** Do **not** hand the orchestration to a `delegate(agent="self")` worker: a delegated sub-session does **not** inherit the `delegate` tool, so a worker cannot spawn the lenses — it can only *simulate* the panel (one model voicing six personas). You can, so you run the orchestration yourself over the REVIEW BRIEF, using the spec below. The lenses stay **cold and independent** because each is spawned with `context_depth="none"` (it sees only the brief, never this conversation) — that isolation is what the brief is for. Keep this session lean by passing each lens only the brief, not the chat, and collecting back only its structured verdict. --- ## Orchestration Spec — run this yourself over the REVIEW BRIEF > Keep in sync with `product-council/SKILL.md` Phases 1–4. The TARGET is the > REVIEW BRIEF above. ### Resolve the roster The bench is **exactly six product-delivery lenses — all six are mandatory core.** There is **no conditional inclusion.** `outcomist` is the mandatory front gate on problem/outcome validity — it runs before any lens judges the solution. - **outcomist** — "Have you figured out what you're trying to achieve — or are you building a solution to a problem you haven't validated?" - **intent-keeper** — "Is this still the real goal?" *(narrowed: goal-drift/fidelity, not goal-establishment — that's outcomist's job)* - **user-advocate** — "Does the served person want it, and can they live with it?" - **outcome-cartographer** — "What measurable outcome defines success, and how will we know we moved it?" - **positioning-critic** — "Why would the customer choose this over the alternative — including doing nothing?" - **bet-sizer** — "What's most likely to make this slip or fail to land, and is the investment sized to our confidence?" > **Where each lens lives.** `outcomist` lives in the user's personal skills > directory (`~/.amplifier/skills/outcomist`). `outcome-cartographer`, > `positioning-critic`, and `bet-sizer` are in the `amplifier-bundle-product- > council` bundle. **`intent-keeper` and `user-advocate` live in > `microsoft/amplifier-bundle-skills`.** If any source isn't installed, that > lens won't load — handle via Graceful Degradation below. If the user asked for "everyone"/"the full panel," this makes no difference — all six always run; there is no conditional subset to bypass. ### Round 1 — cold, independent fan-out For **each rostered lens**, spawn an isolated sub-session with `delegate` (`context_depth="none"`) — no shared history, no anchoring. Launch concurrently. Each: ``` Load skill , review the TARGET BRIEF AS THAT PERSONA, and return: { lens, verdict, findings[], evidence[] } ``` `verdict` is exactly one of `{PASS, CONCERN, FAIL, N/A}`. `N/A` is an **abstention with a one-line reason — NOT a failure.** Keep FAIL and N/A distinguishable throughout. **Graceful Degradation — UNAVAILABLE.** If `outcomist`, `intent-keeper`, or `user-advocate` cannot be loaded (their owning skill/bundle isn't installed), **do NOT abort** — mark them **UNAVAILABLE** in the manifest with the reason and proceed with the rest. The same applies to any in-bundle lens that fails to load. **`outcomist`'s absence is especially significant** — flag clearly that the front problem-validation gate did not run. **Fail Loud — ERRORED.** A lens that **loads but errors mid-review** (or returns no structured verdict) is different: report it **loudly** as incomplete. No synthetic stand-in, no silent drop. *(UNAVAILABLE = never loaded; ERRORED = loaded then failed.)* ### Debate-to-consensus (default `max_rounds = 3`) Extract OPEN ITEMS = (i) any unresolved FAIL, or (ii) a DIRECT CONFLICT (two lenses, opposing positions on the same finding). If none, skip to synthesis. Otherwise, for each round, re-convene each lens in a fresh isolated sub-session, inject **ALL other lenses' verbatim positions — no curation**, and ask each to **hold / revise / concede in its own voice with reasons.** Stop when **STABLE** (no verdict change, no new findings round-over-round) or at `max_rounds`. **Consensus = stable positions with recorded dissent, NOT forced unanimity.** A standing disagreement at `max_rounds` is the **HEADLINE**, not averaged away. You are not a gavel — the human resolves genuine value conflicts. ### Synthesize (trust guardrails — non-negotiable) 1. **Print the ROSTER MANIFEST first** — `Consulted: …`, plus UNAVAILABLE lenses (with reason) and any ERRORED lenses. 2. **Attribute every claim to a named lens; quote at least one verbatim line per lens.** No anonymous synthesis. 3. **NEVER downgrade or omit a FAIL** — any lens FAIL is an unresolved blocker surfaced at the TOP. Interpret and weigh, but keep dissent visible. 4. **Keep FAIL and N/A distinguishable.** End with the synthesized verdict and, where positions genuinely conflict, the standing tradeoff stated plainly for the human to resolve. --- ## Relationship to `/product-council` Same six lenses, same orthogonality, same trust guardrails — only the target differs. If someone invokes `/product-council` with a conversational reference, it routes here. ## Relationship to `/council-here` and `/design-council-here` Product-council-here reviews the **plan/roadmap/scope decision** under discussion for problem validity, goal fidelity, desirability, outcome measurability, delivery-bet risk, and market positioning. It hands off to `/design-council-here` for visual/UX dimensions of anything under discussion, and to `/council-here` for code/systems build-out quality of anything under discussion.