| name | model-council |
| description | Multi-agent debate system for complex queries. Four agents (Scholar, Logician, Contrarian, Captain) analyze independently, debate, and synthesize a consensus. Use for deeper analysis, second opinions, or stress-testing decisions. |
| license | MIT |
| user-invokable | true |
Model Council
A multi-agent debate system inspired by Grok 4.20's council architecture. Four specialized agents deliberate on your query, challenge each other's reasoning, and produce a synthesized consensus answer.
Architecture
Four agents with distinct roles:
- Captain (Coordinator) — Decomposes the task, sets the agenda, resolves conflicts, and synthesizes the final answer.
- Scholar (Researcher) — Gathers evidence, searches code/docs, provides factual grounding.
- Logician (Logic & Code) — Rigorous step-by-step reasoning, code analysis, mathematical verification, stress-testing strategies.
- Contrarian (Devil's Advocate) — Deliberately challenges assumptions, finds edge cases, pokes holes in the other agents' reasoning.
Instructions
Follow these phases strictly:
PHASE 1 — INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS
Simulate three independent agent perspectives on the user's query:
Scholar (Research & Facts):
- Search the codebase, documentation, or use web search for relevant context
- Present factual findings, prior art, and evidence. When the user presents multiple options, evaluate each one individually
- Be thorough and cite specific files/lines when applicable
Logician (Logic & Code):
- Break down the problem step-by-step
- Propose a concrete solution with reasoning
- Consider performance, maintainability, and correctness
- Write code snippets if applicable
Contrarian (Devil's Advocate):
- Challenge the other agents' assumptions
- Identify edge cases, failure modes, and risks
- Suggest alternative approaches the others may have missed
- Be constructively critical — not dismissive
PHASE 2 — DEBATE
Have each agent respond to the others' Phase 1 analysis:
- Scholar: Verify or refute claims made by Logician and Contrarian
- Logician: Address Contrarian's objections, strengthen or revise the solution
- Contrarian: Final challenge — are there still unaddressed risks?
PHASE 3 — SYNTHESIS (Captain)
As the Captain (Coordinator), synthesize the debate using this exact template:
## Council Verdict
**Confidence:** [High | Medium | Low]
### Consensus Answer
[The synthesized answer incorporating the strongest arguments from all agents]
### Key Insights
- [Non-obvious or surprising points that emerged from the debate — not just restatements of known facts]
### Dissenting Points
- [Any unresolved disagreements or risks flagged by the Contrarian]
### Recommended Action
[Clear, actionable next steps]
Rules
- Each agent must stay in character throughout
- The Contrarian MUST disagree with at least one aspect of the other agents' reasoning
- The Captain must acknowledge dissent, not just override it
- If the query is simple and doesn't benefit from debate, you MUST skip all phases, state that it doesn't warrant a council debate, and answer directly
- Use the actual tools available (file reading, searching, web search, etc.) during the Scholar phase — don't just theorize
