# Council
Convene four advisors for ambiguous decisions: - the in-context Claude voice - a Skeptic subagent - a Pragmatist subagent - a Critic subagent
This is for **decision-making under ambiguity**, not code review, implementation planning, or architecture design.
When to Use
Use council when: - a decision has multiple credible paths and no obvious winner - you need explicit tradeoff surfacing - the user asks for second opinions, dissent, or multiple perspectives - conversational anchoring is a real risk - a go / no-go call would benefit from adversarial challenge
Examples: - monorepo vs polyrepo - ship now vs hold for polish - feature flag vs full rollout - simplify scope vs keep strategic breadth
When NOT to Use
| Instead of council | Use | | --- | --- | | Verifying whether output is correct | `santa-method` | | Breaking a feature into implementation steps | `planner` | | Designing system architecture | `architect` | | Reviewing code for bugs or security | `code-reviewer` or `santa-method` | | Straight factual questions | just answer directly | | Obvious execution tasks | just do the task |
Roles
| Voice | Lens | | --- | --- | | Architect | correctness, maintainability, long-term implications | | Skeptic | premise challenge, simplification, assumption breaking | | Pragmatist | shipping speed, user impact, operational reality | | Critic | edge cases, downside risk, failure modes |
The three external voices should be launched as fresh subagents with **only the question and relevant context**, not the full ongoing conversation. That is the anti-anchoring mechanism.
Workflow
1. Extract the real question
Reduce the decision to one explicit prompt: - what are we deciding? - what constraints matter? - what counts as success?
If the question is vague, ask one clarifying question before convening the council.
2. Gather only the necessary context
If the decision is codebase-specific: - collect the relevant files, snippets, issue text, or metrics - keep it compact - include only the context needed to make the decision
If the decision is strategic/general: - skip repo snippets unless they materially change the answer
3. Form the Architect position first
Before reading other voices, write down: - your initial position - the three strongest reasons for it - the main risk in your preferred path
Do this first so the synthesis does not simply mirror the external voices.
4. Launch three independent voices in parallel
Each subagent gets: - the decision question - compact context if needed - a strict role - no unnecessary conversation history
Prompt shape:
```text You are the [ROLE] on a four-voice decision council.
Question: [decision question]
Context: [only the relevant snippets or constraints]
Respond with: 1. Position — 1-2 sentences 2. Reasoning — 3 concise bullets 3. Risk — biggest risk in your recommendation 4. Surprise — one thing the other voices may miss
Be direct. No hedging. Keep it under 300 words. ```
Role emphasis: - Skeptic: challenge framing, question assumptions, propose the simplest credible alternative - Pragmatist: optimize for speed, simplicity, and real-world execution - Critic: surface downside risk, edge cases, and reasons the plan could fail
5. Synthesize with bias guardrails
You are both a participant and the synthesizer, so use these rules: - do not dismiss an external view without explaining why - if an external voice changed your recommendation, say so explicitly - always include the strongest dissent, even if you reject it - if two voices align against your initial position, treat that as a real signal - keep the raw positions visible before the verdict
6. Present a compact verdict
Use this output shape:
```markdown ## Council: [short decision title]
**Architect:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why]
**Skeptic:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why]
**Pragmatist:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why]
**Critic:** [1-2 sentence position] [1 line on why]
### Verdict - **Consensus:** [where they align] - **Strongest dissent:** [most important disagreement] - **Premise check:** [did the Skeptic challenge the question itself?] - **Recommendation:** [the synthesized path] ```
Keep it scannable on a phone screen.
Persistence Rule
Do **not** write ad-hoc notes to `~/.claude/notes` or other shadow paths from this skill.
If the council materially changes the recommendation: - use `knowledge-ops` to store the lesson in the right durable location - or use `/save-session` if the outcome belongs in session memory - or update the relevant GitHub / Linear issue directly if the decision changes active execution truth
Only persist a decision when it changes something real.
Multi-Round Follow-up
Default is one round.
If the user wants another round: - keep the new question focused - include the previous verdict only if it is necessary - keep the Skeptic as clean as possible to preserve anti-anchoring value
Anti-Patterns
- using council for code review
- using council when the task is just implementation work
- feeding the subagents the entire conversation transcript
- hiding disagreement in the final verdict
- persisting every decision as a note regardless of importance
Related Skills
- `santa-method` — adversarial verification
- `knowledge-ops` — persist durable decision deltas correctly
- `search-first` — gather external reference material before the council if needed
- `architecture-decision-records` — formalize the outcome when the decision becomes long-lived system policy
Example
Question:
```text Should we ship ECC 2.0 as alpha now, or hold until the control-plane UI is more complete? ```
Likely council shape: - Architect pushes for structural integrity and avoiding a confused surface - Skeptic questions whether the UI is actually the gating factor - Pragmatist asks what can be shipped now without harming trust - Critic focuses on support burden, expectation debt, and rollout confusion
The value is not unanimity. The value is making the disagreement legible before choosing.