| 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
