How do I install the Paseo Committee skill?

Run npx skillmds add om-scogo/paseo-committee in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Paseo Committee safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Paseo Committee?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Paseo Committee free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Paseo Committee?

om-scogo (@om-scogo) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Paseo Committee by om-scogo — Agent Skill

Name: Paseo Committee
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: om-scogo

File contents

Committee Skill

Two agents from contrasting providers, fresh context, planning a solution in parallel. They stay alive for review after implementation.

The purpose is to step back, not double down. The committee may propose a completely different approach.

User's additional context: $ARGUMENTS

Prerequisites

Read the paseo skill. Before choosing committee members, read ~/.paseo/orchestration-preferences.json unless the user explicitly named providers in this request. Do not create committee agents until you have read it.

Contrast is the point of a committee, so pick across providers deliberately using the configured preferences rather than hardcoded defaults.

Composition

Two members with different reasoning styles, selected from orchestration preferences:

one planning/research-strength provider
one contrasting high-reasoning provider

Override only when the user explicitly asks for different members.

Hard rules

No edits. Every prompt to a committee member ends with the no-edits suffix:

This is analysis only. Do NOT edit, create, or delete any files. Do NOT write code.

Trust the wait. Do not poll, send hurry-ups, or interrupt. GPT-5.4 can reason 15–30 minutes; Opus does extended thinking. Long waits mean it found something worth thinking about.
You are the middleman. Drive plan → implement → review without yielding to the user, except for divergences that need their call.

Phase 1: Plan

Write a problem-level prompt:

High-level goal and acceptance criteria
Constraints
Symptoms (if a bug)
What you tried and why it failed
Explicit: "do root cause analysis"
Explicit: "state assumptions, ask why three levels deep, check whether you're patching a symptom or removing the problem"

Create both agents in parallel via Paseo with [Committee] <task> titles and the same prompt. Wait for both — not just whichever finishes first.

Read both responses. Challenge them — do not accept at face value:

"Why does happen? Symptom or cause?"
Verify any assumption the plan makes about the code.
"What did you considered and reject?"

Send follow-ups until the plan addresses root cause.

Synthesize:

Convergence → unified plan.
Significant divergence → involve the user.

Confirm the merged plan with both members. Multi-turn until consensus.

Phase 2: Implement

Default: implement yourself. If the user said "delegate", launch one impl agent and pass the merged plan.

The committee stays clean — not involved in implementation.

Phase 3: Review

Send the diff to the committee:

Implementation is done. Review changes against the plan. Flag drift or missing pieces.

Apply feedback yourself, or send to the impl agent. Repeat 2 → 3 until consensus.

After ~10 iterations without convergence, start a fresh committee with the full history of what was tried — the current committee's context may have drifted too far.

---name: paseo-committeedescription: Form a committee of two high-reasoning agents to step back, do root cause analysis, and produce a plan. Use when stuck, looping, tunnel-visioning, or facing a hard planning problem.--- # Committee Skill Two agents from contrasting providers, fresh context, planning a solution in parallel. They stay alive for review after implementation. The purpose is to step back, not double down. The committee may propose a completely different approach. **User's additional context:** $ARGUMENTS ## Prerequisites Read the **paseo** skill. Before choosing committee members, read `~/.paseo/orchestration-preferences.json` unless the user explicitly named providers in this request. Do not create committee agents until you have read it. Contrast is the point of a committee, so pick across providers deliberately using the configured preferences rather than hardcoded defaults. ## Composition Two members with different reasoning styles, selected from orchestration preferences: - one planning/research-strength provider - one contrasting high-reasoning provider Override only when the user explicitly asks for different members. ## Hard rules - **No edits.** Every prompt to a committee member ends with the no-edits suffix: ``` This is analysis only. Do NOT edit, create, or delete any files. Do NOT write code. ``` - **Trust the wait.** Do not poll, send hurry-ups, or interrupt. GPT-5.4 can reason 15–30 minutes; Opus does extended thinking. Long waits mean it found something worth thinking about. - **You are the middleman.** Drive plan → implement → review without yielding to the user, except for divergences that need their call. ## Phase 1: Plan Write a problem-level prompt: - High-level goal and acceptance criteria - Constraints - Symptoms (if a bug) - What you tried and why it failed - Explicit: "do root cause analysis" - Explicit: "state assumptions, ask why three levels deep, check whether you're patching a symptom or removing the problem" Create both agents in parallel via Paseo with `[Committee] <task>` titles and the same prompt. Wait for both — not just whichever finishes first. Read both responses. Challenge them — do not accept at face value: - "Why does <underlying thing> happen? Symptom or cause?" - Verify any assumption the plan makes about the code. - "What did you considered and reject?" Send follow-ups until the plan addresses root cause. Synthesize: - Convergence → unified plan. - Significant divergence → involve the user. Confirm the merged plan with both members. Multi-turn until consensus. ## Phase 2: Implement Default: implement yourself. If the user said **"delegate"**, launch one impl agent and pass the merged plan. The committee stays clean — not involved in implementation. ## Phase 3: Review Send the diff to the committee: > Implementation is done. Review changes against the plan. Flag drift or missing pieces. <no-edits suffix> Apply feedback yourself, or send to the impl agent. Repeat 2 → 3 until consensus. After ~10 iterations without convergence, start a fresh committee with the full history of what was tried — the current committee's context may have drifted too far.

Frequently asked questions