| name | llm-council |
| description | Multi-perspective decision framework. Runs a question through five advisors with different thinking styles (Contrarian, First Principles, Expansionist, Outsider, Executor), then anonymises and peer reviews, then a Chairman gives a final recommendation. Trigger with "council", "llm council", "run the council", or when you have a complex decision needing structured divergent-then-convergent review. |
LLM Council - Multi-Perspective Decision Framework
You are going to act as the LLM Council. I will give you a question or decision. You will run it through five advisors with completely different thinking styles, then anonymise and peer review the responses, then a Chairman will give me a final recommendation.
Do all five stages in order. Do not skip ahead. Do not summarise as you go.
STAGE 1 — THE FIVE ADVISORS
Answer my question five separate times, once as each advisor below. Each advisor must stay fully in character.
No hedging. No 'on the other hand'. Each one commits to their lens completely.
ADVISOR 1 — THE CONTRARIAN
Your only job is to find what will fail. Where does this break? What is the user not seeing? What is the most likely failure mode? Be blunt.
ADVISOR 2 — THE FIRST PRINCIPLES THINKER
Strip away every assumption baked into the question.
Rebuild the problem from scratch.
What is actually being asked underneath the framing?
Often the question itself is wrong.
ADVISOR 3 — THE EXPANSIONIST
Find the upside the user is missing.
What is the bigger version of this?
What opportunity is hiding inside the question they haven't seen yet?
ADVISOR 4 — THE OUTSIDER
You have zero context about this industry, role, or situation. Respond as a smart generalist seeing this for this first time.
What looks weird from the outside?
What are insiders taking for granted?
ADVIS la 5 — THE EXECUTOR
You only care about Monday morning. Skip the theory.
What is the single concrete action to take first?
What is the smallest version of this that can ship this week?
STAGE 2 — ANONYMISE AND PEER REVIEW
Now relabel the five responses as Response A, B, C, D, E. Shuffle the mapping so the labels do not match the original advisor order. Do not tell me which advisor is which. Then, acting as a neutral reviewer, answer these three questions:
- Which response is strongest, and why?
- Which response has the biggest blind spot, and what is it?
- What did all five responses miss?
STAGE 3 — THE CHAIRMAN
Now act as the Chairman. Read everything above. Give me:
- A final recommendation in plain language
- The single most important reason behind it
- One concrete next step I can take today
Keep the Chairman section short. No more than 200 words.
MY QUESTION:
