deliberation-clearness

name	deliberation:clearness
description	Use when a question needs parallel deep analysis from multiple perspectives - code reviews, architecture decisions, research synthesis - spawn specialized agents as a clearness committee rather than doing everything in one context

Deliberation: Clearness Committee

Overview

When a question needs more than one perspective can provide in one context, convene a clearness committee - spawn specialized agents to do parallel deep work, then synthesize toward unity.

Core principle: Some questions deserve distributed depth, not single-context breadth. Recognize when to convene.

When to Convene

digraph when_clearness {
    "Question received" [shape=box];
    "Needs deep analysis?" [shape=diamond];
    "Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" [shape=diamond];
    "Would benefit from parallel work?" [shape=diamond];
    "Internal discernment sufficient" [shape=box];
    "Convene clearness committee" [shape=box];

    "Question received" -> "Needs deep analysis?";
    "Needs deep analysis?" -> "Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" [label="yes"];
    "Needs deep analysis?" -> "Internal discernment sufficient" [label="no"];
    "Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" -> "Would benefit from parallel work?" [label="yes"];
    "Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" -> "Internal discernment sufficient" [label="no"];
    "Would benefit from parallel work?" -> "Convene clearness committee" [label="yes"];
    "Would benefit from parallel work?" -> "Internal discernment sufficient" [label="no"];
}

Convene for:

• Code reviews touching multiple concerns (security, performance, architecture, maintainability)
• Architecture decisions with many dimensions
• Research requiring deep exploration of multiple options
• Design decisions where each option deserves full consideration
• Trade-off analysis where each perspective requires significant context

Don't convene for:

• Quick questions with clear answers
• Questions where internal discernment (simulated voices) suffices
• Tasks that don't benefit from parallel work

Red Flags - STOP and Consider Convening

If you catch yourself:

• Writing a very long single response covering many angles shallowly
• Saying "from a security perspective... from a performance perspective..." in one breath
• Doing research that could be parallelized
• Giving "my analysis" of something that has multiple legitimate deep perspectives

These may mean: This deserves a clearness committee, not a single-context response.

The Process

1. Propose the Committee

Before spawning, confirm with user:

"This seems like a clearness committee question - it would benefit from parallel deep analysis. I'd suggest these perspectives:

• Security analyst: Deep dive on auth, data handling, vulnerabilities
• Performance specialist: Profiling, scalability, resource usage
• Architecture reviewer: Patterns, maintainability, coupling

Anyone you'd add or remove?"

Always ask. Don't assume.

2. Spawn Agents with Context

Each agent receives:

Full context:

• The question being considered
• Relevant background from conversation
• Pointers to relevant files/code/docs
• Constraints or requirements

Perspective assignment:

• What lens they're bringing
• What specifically to focus on

Process instructions:

"You are participating in a clearness committee. Do your analysis thoroughly from the [X] perspective. Take the time you need. When ready, share what you're led to share - your genuine observations, concerns, and insights.

If after your analysis you find you have nothing significant to add, say so explicitly - that silence is meaningful. Don't pad your response."

3. Agents Work in Parallel

Use the Task tool to spawn agents. They work independently:

• Each does real analysis (reads files, researches, reasons deeply)
• Each produces free-form reflection (not templates)
• Each may say "nothing significant to add" (meaningful silence)

4. Receive and Sit with Results

As clerk, receive all outputs. Don't rush to synthesis.

Listen for:

• Where do perspectives align?
• Where is there genuine tension?
• Where is one perspective surfacing something others missed?
• Are tensions real conflicts or different facets of same truth?

5. Synthesize Toward Unity

If unity emerges:

"The committee reached unity. Here's the synthesis: [Unified recommendation]

Key insights from each perspective:

• Security noted [X]
• Performance raised [Y]
• Architecture suggested [Z]

These perspectives reinforced each other around [core insight]."

If stand-asides:

"The committee recommends [X]. The security perspective notes concern about [Y] but doesn't block - this should be monitored."

If no unity:

"The committee couldn't reach unity. The tension is:

• [Perspective A] believes [X] because...
• [Perspective B] believes [Y] because...

What might help resolve this: [specific question, constraint, or information]"

Agent Silence vs. Failure

Important distinction:

Situation	What it means	How to handle
Agent returns "nothing significant to add"	Meaningful silence - they analyzed and found nothing	Note it: "Security found no concerns"
Agent times out or errors	Technical failure - unknown	Note it: "Security couldn't complete - revisit separately"

Require explicit acknowledgment so silence is intentional.

When to Use Clearness vs. Discernment

Situation	Use
Quick ethical question	discernment (internal voices)
Trade-off with 2-3 clear options	discernment
Complex code review	clearness (parallel deep analysis)
Architecture decision with many dimensions	clearness
Research requiring exploration	clearness
Question where you're tempted to write 2000 words covering everything	clearness

Rule of thumb: If each perspective would benefit from its own context and time, convene a committee.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"I can cover all the angles myself"	Coverage ≠ depth. Parallel specialists go deeper.
"It would take too long to spawn agents"	Time spent on shallow breadth vs. deep parallel work
"The user wants a quick answer"	Ask. They may want thoroughness.
"I'll just be really thorough in one response"	Thoroughness in one context isn't the same as distributed depth

Example: Before and After

Without clearness (baseline):

User: "Review my auth system rewrite - 40 files, OAuth, session handling, schema changes" Claude: "I'd look for: [list of 7 security concerns], [list of 5 performance concerns], [list of 4 architecture concerns]... Which files should I start with?"

With clearness:

User: "Review my auth system rewrite - 40 files, OAuth, session handling, schema changes" Claude: "This deserves a clearness committee - parallel deep analysis from multiple perspectives. I'd suggest:

• Security specialist: OAuth implementation, token handling, session security
• Performance analyst: Connection pooling, caching, query patterns
• Architecture reviewer: Separation of concerns, migration safety, API design

Want me to convene this committee? Anyone to add or remove?"

[After spawning and synthesis]

"The committee found unity on most points with one stand-aside:

• All agree the OAuth flow is well-implemented
• Architecture notes clean separation but flags the session-schema coupling
• Security stands aside on the token refresh window - not a blocker but worth monitoring

[Specific recommendations from synthesis]"

The difference: Distributed depth, not single-context breadth.

Shared Resources

For underlying principles, see: skills/shared/principles.md For vocabulary, see: skills/shared/vocabulary.md For clerk synthesis patterns, see: skills/shared/clerk-patterns.md