| name | llm-council |
| description | Vet a decision through a panel of independent perspectives, then synthesize ONE recommendation. Generates N distinct framings of a topic (each from a different lens), peer-reviews them against each other, and a chairman pass commits to a single decision-oriented call with the tradeoffs and dissent surfaced. Use when the user wants to stress-test an idea, weigh options, or get a balanced verdict on a design/architecture/product decision. Not for web-research questions (use /deep-research) or code edits. |
| argument-hint | <topic or decision to vet> [--panel N] |
LLM Council
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Run a decision through a council of independent perspectives and return one
synthesized recommendation — not a survey. Each councillor frames the topic from a
genuinely different lens, the panel critiques each other (peer review), and a chairman
pass weighs the takes and commits to a call, keeping the strongest dissent visible.
Golden rule: the value is in diversity then synthesis — N councillors that would
actually disagree, collapsed into one opinionated recommendation. A panel that all says the
same thing, or a synthesis that just lists everyone's view without deciding, both fail.
Provenance & self-containment
The method is the LLM-council / panel-of-advisors pattern (independent perspectives →
peer review → chairman synthesis, per Karpathy's LLM Council and the council skill bases on
claudeskills.info — https://claudeskills.info), adapted to this single-model agentic
harness. That URL is the single WHY-with-URL the comment policy allows.
How "N independent LLMs" maps here: this skill runs inside Claude Code, so each
councillor is an independent subagent given a distinct role + lens (separate context,
no cross-talk until peer review) rather than a different vendor's model. The independence
that matters — uncorrelated framings that surface blind spots — comes from the distinct
lenses, not from distinct model weights. Self-contained: no network call, no
marketplace dependency; the reasoning is the function. (If the topic needs external
current facts — pricing, a vendor's limits — that's /deep-research, not this.)
Phase 0 — Frame the decision
Pin, in one or two lines each:
- The question — restate it as a decision: "should we X or Y?", "is this plan sound?".
If it's vague, sharpen it to something a recommendation can answer.
- What "good" means here — the axes the call is scored on (pick what applies: blast
radius / reversibility / effort / cost / fit-to-stack / user impact / maintenance / risk).
- Constraints — Orbit's reality when relevant (solo dev, dual-repo, cost-sensitive,
cross-platform parity, backward-compat). State assumptions rather than interrogating; ask
only a load-bearing unknown that would flip the recommendation.
- Panel size — default 4 councillors (+ chairman).
--panel N overrides; floor 3,
cap at the 3-concurrent subagent limit per the root CLAUDE.md (queue extras).
Phase 1 — Assemble the panel (distinct lenses)
Choose councillors whose lenses would genuinely pull in different directions on this
topic. A strong default set — adapt to fit the decision:
| Lens | Pushes for | Catches |
|---|
| The Pragmatist | shipping the simplest thing that works now | over-engineering, gold-plating |
| The Architect | long-term structure, leverage, clean seams | short-term hacks that ossify |
| The Skeptic / Red-team | what breaks, what's been missed | happy-path thinking, unstated risk |
| The User/Product advocate | the person on the other end of the change | tech-first decisions that hurt UX |
| (optional) The Cost/Ops realist | $ and operational burden at solo scale | choices that are cheap to build, costly to run |
| (optional) The Maintainer (6-months-later) | who debugs this at 2am | cleverness that won't survive contact |
For --panel N, pick the N most load-bearing lenses for the topic; never two that would
say the same thing (correlated councillors waste the panel).
Phase 2 — Independent framings (fan out)
Spawn the councillors as independent subagents, 3 concurrent (queue extras), each
blind to the others. Each prompt embeds:
You are vetting: <the decision, with Phase-0 framing & constraints>. Argue
from your lens only — don't hedge into neutrality. Give: your recommendation (a
clear position, not "it depends"), the 2-4 reasons that drive it, the strongest
risk or cost you see, and the one thing that would change your mind. Be concrete and
decision-oriented; no padding. ~200 words.
Independence is the point — do not let them see each other yet.
Phase 3 — Peer review
Now expose the framings to each other and run one critique round (a second pass of the same
subagents, or a single consolidated critique step for a small panel). Each councillor:
- names the strongest point another councillor made that it initially missed, and
- names the weakest claim on the table and why.
This is where blind spots collapse — a Pragmatist conceding the Architect's leverage point,
the Skeptic puncturing an optimistic cost estimate. Capture the points of agreement (the
panel converged) and the live disagreements (genuine, unresolved tradeoffs).
Phase 4 — Chairman synthesis (commit to one call)
You are the chairman. Decide — don't relay. Weigh the framings and the peer review, and
commit:
- Recommendation — the single best path, up top, in one or two sentences. Opinionated.
- Why — the reasoning, tied to the Phase-0 axes and constraints; name which councillors'
points carried the most weight and why.
- Tradeoffs accepted — what this call gives up (the losing lenses weren't wrong, they
were outweighed — say so).
- Strongest dissent — the best argument against the recommendation, kept visible so the
user can overrule with eyes open. (Never bury the minority view.)
- Confidence & what would change it — how sure, and the fact/condition that would flip
the call.
- Next step — the first concrete action.
When the panel is genuinely split with no dominant case, say so and give the
decision rule (e.g. "if reversibility matters most → A; if you won't revisit this for a
year → B") rather than forcing false certainty.
Output
## Council Verdict: {topic}
**Recommendation**: {one or two sentences — the single call}
### The panel
| Councillor | Position | Key point |
|---|---|---|
| Pragmatist | {for/against X} | {one line} |
| Architect | … | … |
| Skeptic | … | … |
| {…} | … | … |
### Where the panel converged
{the points all/most lenses agreed on}
### Live tradeoffs
{the genuine disagreements, stated as tradeoffs — not averaged away}
### Why this call
{the chairman's reasoning, tied to the decision axes}
### Strongest dissent
{the best case against — kept visible}
### Confidence & next step
**Confidence**: {high/medium/low — and what would change it}
**Do first**: {the concrete next action}
Guardrails — do NOT
- Hand back a survey. The chairman pass must decide. N views with no verdict is the
primary failure mode.
- Run a correlated panel. Councillors that all reason the same way add nothing — pick
lenses that genuinely conflict on this topic.
- Average the disagreements away. Surface real tradeoffs and pick; don't mush them into
a bland middle.
- Bury the dissent. The strongest counter-argument stays in the output.
- Manufacture false balance. If one option is clearly right, say so — don't invent a
con to look even-handed.
- Use this for external-fact questions. Pricing / a vendor's current limits / "what's
the best tool" needs fetched evidence →
/deep-research. The council reasons; it doesn't
research.
- Exceed the 3-concurrent subagent cap unless the user opted into more.
- Implement anything. This vets a decision; it writes no code.
