deep-execution

name	deep-execution
description	Executes agent-enhanced council queries by spawning parallel Claude subagents that each query a provider, evaluate response quality, ask follow-up questions, and return structured insights with confidence ratings and blind spot analysis. Invoked when the --agents flag is used or when complex architectural decisions are detected.

Agent-Enhanced Council Execution

Use parallel Claude subagents for deeper analysis. Each subagent queries its provider, evaluates response quality, can ask follow-up questions, and returns structured insights.

Step 1: Determine Provider Details

For each selected provider, gather:

• Provider name and script path: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/providers/{name}.sh
• Model name: run bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/query-council.sh --list-available or read the provider script defaults

Step 2: Spawn Provider Agents in Parallel

Launch ALL provider agents in a single message (multiple Agent tool calls) for parallel execution. Use run_in_background: true and subagent_type: "general-purpose" for each.

Agent prompt template: See agent-prompt-template.md for the full template. Read it and fill in {PROVIDER}, {SCRIPT_PATH}, and {QUESTION} for each agent.

CRITICAL: If a role was assigned to a provider (via --roles), build the role-injected question with the same helper the standard flow uses — source scripts/lib/prompts.sh and scripts/lib/roles.sh, then build_prompt_with_role "<question>" "<role>" — and pass its output as the agent's {QUESTION}. The role format itself is defined in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/prompts/role-injection.md.

CRITICAL: If file context was gathered (via --file or auto-context), include it in the question passed to each agent.

Step 3: Collect and Validate Results

As each background agent completes, you will be automatically notified. Wait for ALL agents to complete before proceeding to display.

If an agent fails or times out, note the failure and continue with available results.

Validate each agent's reply against the contract before using it. Write the reply to a file first (its JSON may contain quotes, backticks, and $() that an inline echo would let the shell mangle or execute), then feed it on stdin:

cat > /tmp/council-reply.json <<'COUNCIL_REPLY_EOF'
<paste the agent's raw JSON reply here, verbatim, unescaped>
COUNCIL_REPLY_EOF
bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/validate-analysis.sh < /tmp/council-reply.json

• Exit 0: the reply is a valid analysis; use its fields in Steps 4-5.
• Exit 1: do NOT silently accept or paraphrase the reply. Display it raw under the provider's header inside a fenced block, marked [invalid agent analysis - raw reply preserved], list the validator's reasons, and exclude that provider from confidence-weighted synthesis (mention it under Divergence/failures instead).

Step 4: Display Results

For each provider with a valid analysis, display it using this format:

## {EMOJI} {PROVIDER} ({MODEL}) — Agent Analysis

**Quality**: {quality} | **Confidence**: {confidence} | **Retried**: {retried}

### Key Recommendations
{recommendations}

### Unique Perspective
{unique_perspective}

### Blind Spots
{blind_spots}

---

<details>
<summary>Full {PROVIDER} Response</summary>

{full_response}

</details>

Provider emojis (ALWAYS use emoji + space):

• 🟦 Gemini
• 🔳 OpenAI
• 🟥 Grok
• 🟩 Perplexity

Step 5: Enhanced Synthesis

With pre-analyzed responses, generate a richer synthesis than the standard mode:

Confidence-Weighted Consensus

Weight agreement by each provider's confidence level. High-confidence agreement is stronger signal than low-confidence agreement — but only about the reasoning, never about the premises. Every provider read the same description of a system none of them can inspect, so confident unanimity can equally mean the question asserted something false and each provider reasoned from it correctly. When agreement is both broad and confident, say so and then name the premise the whole answer rests on, and whether anyone was in a position to check it.

Blind Spot Analysis

Cross-reference each provider's blind spots against other providers' recommendations. Flag risks that NO provider considered.

Divergence with Context

Where providers disagree, explain WHY they likely diverge (different assumptions, different optimization targets, different risk tolerance).

Recommendation

Synthesize the strongest approach, noting which providers support it and at what confidence level.

Step 6: Save Output

Save the complete output (all provider analyses + synthesis) to a cache file:

mkdir -p .claude/council-cache

Write the output to .claude/council-cache/council-agents-{TIMESTAMP}.md where TIMESTAMP is the current Unix timestamp.

Tell the user:

---

Full agent analysis saved to .claude/council-cache/council-agents-{TIMESTAMP}.md

Error Handling

• If a provider agent fails, show the error and continue with others
• If ALL agents fail, report clearly and suggest falling back to standard mode
• If only one provider was selected and its agent fails, suggest retrying without --agents