tomevault-io Multi-Perspective Analysis
Use the council_query tool to submit complex questions for adversarial deliberation by five personas, each representing a distinct intellectual tradition. Use council_decision when the user needs a concrete recommendation between options.
When to Use
- Complex questions with no clear right answer
- High-stakes decisions where multiple viewpoints matter
- Research evaluation to stress-test findings
- Strategic planning to surface blind spots
- Contentious topics where bias is likely
The Five Personas
| Persona | Tradition | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Advocate | Steel-manning | Builds the strongest case FOR the position |
| Skeptic | Popperian falsificationism | Finds the observation that kills the claim |
| Oracle | Empirical base-rate reasoning | Grounds debate in historical data and statistics |
| Contrarian | Kuhnian paradigm critique | Rejects the framing, proposes alternative paradigms |
| Arbiter | Bayesian synthesis | Synthesizes all views with explicit prior/posterior updates |
How to Use
Basic Query
council_query(question="Should we migrate our monolith to microservices?")
With Context
council_query(
question="Is proof-of-stake more secure than proof-of-work?",
context="We're evaluating consensus mechanisms for a new L1 blockchain targeting institutional users."
)
Subset of Personas
council_query(
question="Will quantum computing break RSA by 2030?",
personas=["skeptic", "oracle", "arbiter"]
)
Cost Modes
council_query(question="Should we rewrite the storage layer?", mode="fast")
council_query(question="Should we rewrite the storage layer?", mode="standard")
council_query(question="Should we rewrite the storage layer?", mode="deep")
fast: Skeptic + Arbiter for cheap pre-checksstandard: Full council for normal decisionsdeep: Full council plus a second Arbiter pass for high-stakes decisions
Decision Review
council_decision(
options=["Ship now", "Delay for audit", "Cut scope and ship"],
decision_context="Hackathon demo is tomorrow; auth changes are unreviewed",
criteria=["demo impact", "safety", "reversibility"]
)
Interpreting Results
The council returns a structured verdict:
- confidence_score (0-100): Arbiter's posterior confidence after weighing all arguments
- conflict_detected: True if personas strongly disagree (confidence spread > 30%)
- persona_responses: Each persona's analysis with their individual confidence
- arbiter_synthesis: The Arbiter's Bayesian synthesis with prior/posterior reasoning
- action_summary: Recommendation, top risks, missing evidence, and next actions
- dpo_pairs: Preference pairs for training (aligned vs overruled responses)
- sources: Model-cited URLs
- verified_sources: URLs actually retrieved by the council evidence layer
Confidence Guidelines
- 80-100: Strong consensus, high-quality evidence
- 60-79: Moderate confidence, some unresolved tensions
- 40-59: Mixed signals, significant uncertainty
- 0-39: Low confidence, major disagreements or insufficient evidence
Workflow: Research Then Evaluate
For best results, combine web research with council evaluation:
- Use
web_searchto gather initial data - Use
web_extractto read key sources - Synthesize findings into a draft analysis
- Use
council_evaluateto stress-test your analysis - Revise based on council feedback
Custom Personas
Add custom personas in ~/.hermes-council/config.yaml:
personas:
security_analyst:
tradition: "Adversarial security thinking"
system_prompt: "You are a security analyst. Find every attack vector..."
tags: ["security", "adversarial"]
Custom personas are merged with defaults. Use the same name to override a default.
Source: Ridwannurudeen/hermes-council — distributed by TomeVault.