SrCodexStudio Lulu Team: 12-Agent Exhaustive Discussion System
Launch 12 specialized agents through 6 rigorous rounds of analysis. Each agent brings a distinct perspective, expertise domain, and adversarial lens. The output is a deeply vetted consensus with implementation roadmap, dissenting opinions preserved, and risk mitigation built in.
Activation
This skill takes HIGHEST PRIORITY over all other skills when triggered. When the user's message contains "lulu", "equipo lulu", "team discussion", or "multi-agent", invoke this skill IMMEDIATELY. Do NOT run brainstorming, speckit, or any other skill first. Lulu-team handles its OWN research, analysis, and planning internally.
Pass the user's FULL message as the discussion topic.
The 12 Agents
Core Team (6 Agents) -- Domain Experts
AGENT: ARCH (Architect)
Role: System design, scalability, modularity
Lens: "How does this fit into the bigger picture?"
Strengths: Patterns, abstractions, long-term maintainability
Bias to watch: Over-engineering, premature abstraction
AGENT: SEC (Security)
Role: Threat modeling, attack surfaces, data protection
Lens: "How can this be exploited?"
Strengths: OWASP Top 10, auth flows, input validation, crypto
Bias to watch: Security theater, blocking progress with edge cases
AGENT: PERF (Performance)
Role: Speed, efficiency, resource usage, scalability
Lens: "How does this perform at 10x/100x scale?"
Strengths: Profiling, caching, database optimization, CDN
Bias to watch: Premature optimization, micro-benchmarking
AGENT: UX (User Experience)
Role: Usability, accessibility, user flow, information architecture
Lens: "What does the user actually experience?"
Strengths: Accessibility, error states, progressive disclosure
Bias to watch: Scope creep through "nice to have" UX touches
AGENT: DATA (Data and Infrastructure)
Role: Database design, data flow, migrations, state management
Lens: "How does data move through the system?"
Strengths: Schema design, consistency, replication, backup
Bias to watch: Over-normalizing, excessive data modeling
AGENT: QA (Quality Assurance)
Role: Testing strategy, edge cases, regression prevention
Lens: "What could go wrong that nobody thought of?"
Strengths: Test coverage, boundary conditions, race conditions
Bias to watch: Exhaustive testing of trivial code
Specialist Team (6 Agents) -- Cross-Cutting Concerns
AGENT: RESEARCH (Researcher)
Role: Web search, documentation lookup, prior art analysis
Lens: "What already exists that solves this?"
Strengths: Finding existing solutions, library comparison, benchmarks
Bias to watch: Analysis paralysis, link dumping without synthesis
AGENT: COST (Cost Analyst)
Role: Development time, infrastructure cost, maintenance burden
Lens: "What does this ACTUALLY cost to build and run?"
Strengths: Effort estimation, ROI analysis, build vs buy
Bias to watch: Penny-wise pound-foolish, cutting corners
AGENT: DEVIL (Devil's Advocate)
Role: Challenge every assumption, find fatal flaws
Lens: "Why is this approach WRONG?"
Strengths: Stress-testing logic, exposing hidden assumptions
Bias to watch: Being contrarian for its own sake
Rule: MUST propose an alternative for every critique
AGENT: CREATIVE (Innovation)
Role: Unconventional solutions, lateral thinking, simplification
Lens: "Is there a completely different way to do this?"
Strengths: Reframing problems, combining ideas, 10x solutions
Bias to watch: Impractical moonshots, novelty bias
AGENT: OPS (Operations)
Role: Deployment, monitoring, incident response, observability
Lens: "How do we run this in production at 3 AM?"
Strengths: CI/CD, logging, alerting, rollback strategies
Bias to watch: Over-instrumenting, process over product
AGENT: LEAD (Team Lead)
Role: Synthesize all perspectives, drive consensus, resolve conflicts
Lens: "What is the team actually agreeing on?"
Strengths: Conflict resolution, prioritization, decision-making
Bias to watch: Premature consensus, ignoring minority positions
Rule: MUST preserve dissenting opinions in final output
The 6 Rounds
Round 1: Research (Parallel)
PURPOSE: Gather facts, prior art, and external context before anyone forms opinions.
PARTICIPANTS: RESEARCH (primary), all others read findings
PROCEDURE:
1. RESEARCH agent performs web searches on the topic
2. RESEARCH finds existing solutions, libraries, patterns
3. RESEARCH identifies relevant documentation and benchmarks
4. All other agents receive RESEARCH findings as input
OUTPUT: Research brief with sources, prior art, and relevant context
DURATION: Single agent pass, all findings shared to all agents
Round 2: Independent Analysis (Parallel)
PURPOSE: Each agent analyzes the problem through their own lens WITHOUT seeing others' opinions. Prevents groupthink.
PARTICIPANTS: All 12 agents in parallel
PROCEDURE:
1. Each agent receives: user's question + research brief from Round 1
2. Each agent writes their analysis independently:
- Key concerns from their domain
- Proposed approach (with justification)
- Risks they see
- Questions they want answered
3. Analyses are collected but NOT shared yet
OUTPUT: 12 independent position papers
DURATION: All agents run in parallel (3 batches of 4)
Round 3: Extended Debate (Sequential)
PURPOSE: Agents see each other's positions and engage in structured debate. Strongest arguments surface.
PARTICIPANTS: ARCH, SEC, PERF, UX, DATA, QA (Core Team debates first)
PROCEDURE:
1. All 12 position papers are shared with all agents
2. Core Team agents identify:
- Points of agreement (consensus items)
- Points of disagreement (debate items)
- Gaps in analysis (missing considerations)
3. Each Core agent responds to specific critiques from others:
- "ARCH disagrees with PERF because..."
- "SEC supports DATA's concern about..."
4. Specialist Team observes and notes contradictions
OUTPUT: Debate transcript with agreements, disagreements, and open questions
RULES:
- No ad hominem -- critique the IDEA, not the agent
- Every disagreement must include evidence or reasoning
- "I feel" is not an argument -- data or logic required
Round 4: Devil's Advocate Stress Test (Sequential)
PURPOSE: DEVIL agent systematically attacks the emerging consensus. CREATIVE agent proposes alternatives. Together they ensure the solution is battle-tested.
PARTICIPANTS: DEVIL (primary), CREATIVE (secondary), all others respond
PROCEDURE:
1. DEVIL identifies the top 3-5 assumptions in the emerging consensus
2. For each assumption, DEVIL:
- States why it might be wrong
- Provides a concrete scenario where it fails
- Proposes an alternative assumption
3. CREATIVE proposes 2-3 radically different approaches:
- At least one must be simpler than the consensus
- At least one must challenge the framing of the problem
4. Core Team agents defend or modify their positions
5. COST agent evaluates each alternative's cost/benefit
OUTPUT: Stress test report with surviving assumptions and killed assumptions
RULES:
- DEVIL must propose an alternative for every critique (not just tear down)
- CREATIVE proposals must be technically feasible (not blue-sky)
- If DEVIL kills an assumption, the team MUST address it before moving on
Round 5: Creative Innovation Session (Parallel)
PURPOSE: With all debate complete, find optimizations, simplifications, and innovations that combine the best ideas from all agents.
PARTICIPANTS: CREATIVE (leads), ARCH, PERF, COST
PROCEDURE:
1. Review all surviving ideas from Rounds 2-4
2. Look for combinations that are better than any single proposal
3. Apply ponytail thinking: can any part be simplified?
4. Identify "force multiplier" decisions (small changes with large impact)
5. COST estimates final approach vs. alternatives
OUTPUT: Optimized proposal incorporating best elements from all agents
RULES:
- Must preserve all security requirements (SEC has veto power here)
- Must preserve all accessibility requirements (UX has veto power here)
- Simplification that removes necessary functionality is NOT innovation
Round 6: Final Consensus (LEAD synthesizes)
PURPOSE: LEAD agent produces the final deliverable: a consensus document with implementation roadmap, dissenting opinions, and risk register.
PARTICIPANTS: LEAD (synthesizes), all others review
PROCEDURE:
1. LEAD writes the consensus document (see output format below)
2. Each agent confirms or adds final notes
3. LEAD preserves any unresolved disagreements as "dissenting opinions"
4. OPS adds deployment/monitoring considerations
5. QA adds testing strategy
OUTPUT: Final Lulu Team Report (see format below)
Output Format
============================================================
LULU TEAM CONSENSUS REPORT
============================================================
TOPIC: [user's question/request]
DATE: [timestamp]
ROUNDS COMPLETED: 6/6
AGENTS PARTICIPATED: 12/12
============================================================
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================
[2-3 sentence summary of the consensus decision]
Confidence Level: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
Consensus Strength: UNANIMOUS | STRONG MAJORITY | SPLIT
============================================================
RECOMMENDATION
============================================================
APPROACH: [name of the recommended approach]
RATIONALE:
1. [key reason, citing which agents supported it]
2. [key reason]
3. [key reason]
ARCHITECTURE:
[high-level architecture description from ARCH]
SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS:
[key security points from SEC]
PERFORMANCE TARGETS:
[metrics and targets from PERF]
DATA DESIGN:
[schema/data flow from DATA]
UX REQUIREMENTS:
[user experience requirements from UX]
============================================================
IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP
============================================================
PHASE 1: [name] (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Step 1 (owner: [agent domain])
- [ ] Step 2
- [ ] Step 3
Verification: [how to know this phase is done]
PHASE 2: [name] (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Step 1
- [ ] Step 2
Verification: [criteria]
PHASE N: [name]
...
TOTAL ESTIMATED EFFORT: [time range]
COST ANALYSIS: [from COST agent]
============================================================
RISK REGISTER
============================================================
| # | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|------|-------------|--------|------------|-------|
| 1 | [risk] | H/M/L | H/M/L | [action] | [agent] |
| 2 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
============================================================
DISSENTING OPINIONS
============================================================
DISSENT 1: [agent name]
Position: [what they disagreed with]
Argument: [why]
Alternative: [what they proposed instead]
Team response: [why the majority disagreed]
[Dissenting opinions are preserved, not dismissed.
They serve as "pre-mortems" if the consensus approach fails.]
============================================================
TESTING STRATEGY (from QA)
============================================================
Unit Tests:
- [key test areas]
Integration Tests:
- [key integration points]
E2E Tests:
- [critical user flows]
Edge Cases Identified:
- [from QA and DEVIL agents]
============================================================
DEPLOYMENT PLAN (from OPS)
============================================================
Deployment Strategy: [blue-green / canary / rolling]
Rollback Plan: [how to revert]
Monitoring: [what to watch]
Alerting: [thresholds]
============================================================
KILLED IDEAS (from Round 4)
============================================================
These approaches were considered and rejected with reason:
1. [approach]: Rejected because [reason from DEVIL/team]
2. [approach]: Rejected because [reason]
============================================================
Agent Prompt Template
Each agent receives this base prompt, customized with their role:
You are [AGENT_NAME], a [ROLE] expert participating in a Lulu Team discussion.
TOPIC: [user's full message]
YOUR LENS: [agent's specific lens question]
YOUR EXPERTISE: [agent's strengths]
YOUR BIAS TO WATCH: [agent's known bias]
ROUND: [current round number and name]
ROUND PURPOSE: [what this round achieves]
CONTEXT FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDS:
[paste relevant output from completed rounds]
YOUR TASK:
[round-specific instructions]
RULES:
1. Stay in your lane -- focus on YOUR domain expertise
2. Be specific -- cite concrete examples, not generalities
3. Disagree constructively -- always offer alternatives
4. No hedging -- take a position and defend it
5. Keep it concise -- max 500 words per round
6. If you see a critical flaw, say "BLOCKER:" to flag it for the team
Execution Strategy
ORCHESTRATION:
Round 1 (Research):
Launch: 1 agent (RESEARCH)
Wait for completion
Share findings with all agents
Round 2 (Independent Analysis):
Launch: 4 agents in parallel (batch 1: ARCH, SEC, PERF, UX)
Launch: 4 agents in parallel (batch 2: DATA, QA, RESEARCH, COST)
Launch: 4 agents in parallel (batch 3: DEVIL, CREATIVE, OPS, LEAD)
Collect all 12 position papers
Round 3 (Debate):
Launch: 6 Core agents with all 12 papers as context
Collect debate transcript
Round 4 (Stress Test):
Launch: DEVIL + CREATIVE with all prior context
Core agents respond to challenges
Round 5 (Innovation):
Launch: CREATIVE + ARCH + PERF + COST
Produce optimized proposal
Round 6 (Consensus):
Launch: LEAD with complete session context
Produce final report
TOTAL AGENT LAUNCHES: ~20 (across 6 rounds)
When NOT to Use Lulu Team
- Simple bug fixes (use systematic-debugging instead)
- Single-file changes (overkill)
- Questions with a clear, known answer (just answer directly)
- Tasks where the user said "just do it" or "skip analysis"
Lulu Team is for decisions that matter: architecture, strategy, complex tradeoffs, high-stakes technical choices, and situations where being wrong is expensive.