council

name	council
description	Multi-perspective parallel debate on a decision — 3-5 independent perspectives argue in parallel, then synthesize into a verdict. Use when debating, weighing options, or needing multiple viewpoints on a question.
argument-hint	<question or decision>

Debate $ARGUMENTS from multiple perspectives:

Step 1: Define Perspectives

Choose 3-5 perspectives relevant to the topic. Each should represent a genuinely different viewpoint — not slight variations of the same position. Examples:

• Technical feasibility vs business value vs user experience
• Short-term pragmatism vs long-term architecture vs risk aversion
• Builder vs user vs critic

Step 2: Round 1 — Opening Positions (Parallel)

Spawn one subagent per perspective in parallel (in a single message).

Each subagent should be a general-purpose agent with this prompt:

You are arguing from the perspective of [PERSPECTIVE]. The question is: [QUESTION]. State your position and primary argument in 100-200 words. Be specific and opinionated — do not hedge.

Step 3: Round 2 — Challenges (Parallel)

After collecting Round 1 results, spawn another batch of subagents in parallel (in a single message). Each perspective challenges the weakest point of another's argument:

Each subagent prompt:

You are [PERSPECTIVE A]. Here are the opening positions: [all Round 1 results]. Challenge the weakest point of [PERSPECTIVE B]'s argument in 100 words. Be direct.

Step 4: Synthesis (You, Not Agents)

As the orchestrating agent, synthesize the debate:

• Points of agreement across perspectives
• Remaining disagreements and why they persist
• Verdict: recommended action with confidence level (high/medium/low)
• Key risk if the recommendation is wrong
• Decision reversal trigger — what new information would change the recommendation

Important

• All subagent spawns per round MUST be in a single message for parallel execution
• Perspectives should be genuinely diverse, not strawmen
• The synthesis is YOUR job — do not ask a subagent to synthesize