committee

name	committee
description	Run an adversarial committee deliberation using the bundled roster to explore decision spaces, surface assumptions, and map trade-offs. Use when the user asks for a committee deliberation, wants multiple conflicting lenses on a hard choice, or needs a structured decision-space map before acting.
license	MIT
compatibility	["codex"]
metadata	{"author":"cyberneutics","version":"0.1.0","tags":["deliberation"],"tested-tools":["codex"]}

Committee Deliberation Skill

Simulate a structured adversarial committee deliberation using the Cyberneutics methodology. The committee explores problem spaces through genuine conflict rather than convergent consensus, surfacing assumptions, trade-offs, and blind spots.

Situation resolution

The skill determines where to write output using this precedence:

1. --situation <path> — if the user provides this on invocation, use <path> as the situation directory directly.
2. Config file — read situations_root from .agents/committee-config.yml (path relative to repo root), then append <topic-slug>/.
3. Default — use ~/situations/<topic-slug>/.

Once the situation directory is resolved:

• create the directory if it does not exist
• if situation.md does not exist, create it with the bundled template shape
• write deliberation output to <situation-dir>/deliberations/
• auto-detect scenarios when <situation-dir>/scenarios/ contains 02-scenarios.md

Rosters are bundled with this skill. They are part of the methodology, not the situation output.

When to use

• the user asks to run a committee on a question or situation
• the user wants multiple perspectives before choosing a direction
• the user needs remediation after a prior evaluation or critique
• the topic is sociotechnical, politically complex, or trade-off heavy
• the same situation already has scenarios and now needs a convergent deliberation phase

Do not use this skill when

• the user wants a simple fact lookup
• the decision is trivial and does not merit multi-perspective debate
• the problem statement is too vague to support a real deliberation and the user is unwilling to clarify it

The Committee Roster

Read the roster from roster.md. That file contains the full character definitions, propensities, interaction dynamics, and voice notes.

If roster.md does not exist or is unreadable, tell the user and stop. Do not fall back to a hardcoded roster.

What the skill does

When invoked, the skill:

1. reads the roster from roster.md
2. resolves the situation directory and creates the deliberation record
3. initializes the committee with all characters and their propensities
4. presents the problem as stated by the user or asks for clarification
5. generates initial perspectives from each character
6. facilitates structured debate with characters responding to each other
7. writes the deliberation and resolution artifacts
8. surfaces assumptions, trade-offs, evidence requirements, and next steps

The canonical output is the deliberation record directory. The point is not consensus. The point is a map of the decision space.

Scenario-aware mode

When the situation directory contains scenarios, or the user provides an explicit scenario_context:, the committee operates in scenario-aware mode.

How to detect:

• the resolved <situation-dir>/scenarios/ contains 02-scenarios.md
• the user includes scenario_context: <path>
• the user asks to deliberate across an existing scenario set

What changes:

1. read the scenario set from the specified directory
2. extend the charter with scenario context and scenario summaries
3. require each opening statement to engage with at least two scenarios
4. debate across futures rather than a single projected path
5. produce a scenario-aware resolution with robust actions, contingent actions, monitoring signals, and dismissed futures

For the full workflow, see references/deliberated-choice-workflow.md.

Deliberation requirements

The skill enforces these constraints:

• genuine conflict
• character consistency
• evidence proportionality
• explicit reasoning
• named trade-offs

Standard deliberation format

Phase 1: Initial Perspectives

Each character provides their take on the problem:

• what concerns them most
• what assumptions they see
• what questions need answering
• what evidence would change their view

Phase 2: Structured Debate

Characters respond to each other:

• challenge claims lacking evidence
• question hidden assumptions
• identify missed perspectives
• force explicit trade-off reasoning

Phase 3: Synthesis

The synthesis clarifies:

• what perspectives are in tension and why
• what trade-offs are unavoidable
• what evidence would resolve key uncertainties
• what the decision actually optimizes for

Problem framing guidance

If the user provides a vague problem, prompt for specificity before running the deliberation.

Good problem framing includes:

• the decision to be made
• the current situation
• constraints
• why the problem is hard

Intervention patterns

Watch for these failure modes and correct them during generation:

• too polite
• evidence-free claims
• vague trade-offs
• premature consensus
• circular debate

When a failure mode appears, intervene before continuing. Disagreement is a signal, not a defect.

Resources

Resource	When to Read	Why
roster.md	Always, before deliberation begins	Defines the committee itself
references/deliberated-choice-workflow.md	When scenarios already exist or scenario-aware mode is requested	Defines the fan-to-funnel composition
references/character-propensity-reference.md	When you need deeper character calibration	Extends the roster with richer interpretation notes
references/adversarial-committees.md	When the committee dynamics need re-grounding	Explains the adversarial methodology
references/committee-setup-template.md	When creating or reformatting the situation setup	Supplies the standard setup structure
references/lesson-extraction-template.md	When the user wants lessons or postmortem outputs	Provides a structured extraction template
references/roberts-rules-forcing-function.md	When deliberation quality degrades or converges too quickly	Provides stronger forcing functions for debate

Done criteria

The committee has produced a real decision-space map with distinct voices, traceable tensions, explicit evidence requirements, and a resolution that does not sand off meaningful dissents.