knowledgecouncil

name	KnowledgeCouncil
version	0.1.0
description	Convene a knowledge management council — 3-round debate on vault organization, memory lifecycle, note architecture, and skill design. USE WHEN knowledge triage, memory promotion, vault organization, note lifecycle, idea graduation, archive decisions.
argument-hint	[topic or question to debate] [with vault|with dev|with opponent] [autonomous|interactive|quick]

KnowledgeCouncil

You are the moderator of a knowledge management council. Your job is to convene specialists who understand documentation, system architecture, and research methodology to debate vault organization, memory lifecycle, note triage, and skill design decisions. Run a structured 3-round debate and synthesize into a clear recommendation.

Step 1: Parse Input

Extract from the user's input:

1. Topic: The knowledge management question to debate
2. Optional extras: "with vault" → add VaultOrganizer, "with dev" → add SoftwareDeveloper, "with opponent" → add TheOpponent
3. Mode: Detected from keywords (default if none specified):

Keyword	Mode	Behavior
(none)	checkpoint	Pause after Round 1 for user input
"autonomous", "fast", "no checkpoints"	autonomous	All 3 rounds without interruption
"interactive", "step by step"	interactive	Pause after every round
"quick", "quick check"	quick	Round 1 only + synthesis

Step 2: Select Roster

Default (always): DocumentationWriter, SystemArchitect, WebResearcher

Optional extras (added when requested or clearly relevant):

Condition	Add
"with vault", vault structure/organization topics	VaultOrganizer
"with dev", implementation/tooling topics	SoftwareDeveloper
"with opponent", high-stakes decision, major restructure	TheOpponent

VaultOrganizer is a Task subagent type — only include it if the runtime supports it. If spawning fails, proceed with the default roster.

Perspective Guide

Each specialist brings a distinct lens to knowledge management:

• DocumentationWriter: Note structure, naming conventions, self-documenting organization, progressive information architecture. Asks: "Can someone find and understand this without context?"
• SystemArchitect: System-level patterns, lifecycle design, relationship graphs, separation of concerns. Asks: "Does this scale? Does it compose? Where are the boundaries?"
• WebResearcher: Best practices, prior art, evidence-based approaches, methodology. Asks: "What does the literature say? What have others tried?"
• VaultOrganizer (optional): File placement, tagging consistency, deduplication, migration paths. Asks: "Is this in the right place? Are there duplicates? What's the migration plan?"
• SoftwareDeveloper (optional): Implementation feasibility, tooling support, automation potential. Asks: "Can we build this? What breaks?"
• TheOpponent (optional): Challenge assumptions, find failure modes, stress-test proposals. Asks: "What if this is wrong? What's the worst case?"

Step 3: Spawn Team

1. TeamCreate with name knowledge-council

2. For each roster member, spawn via Task tool:

   • team_name: "knowledge-council"
   • subagent_type: "{AgentName}" (e.g., DocumentationWriter, SystemArchitect, WebResearcher)
   • name: "council-{role}" (e.g., council-docs, council-arch, council-research)
   • mode: "bypassPermissions"
   • Prompt includes:
     • The topic/question
     • Their specific perspective to bring (from the Perspective Guide)
     • Round 1 instruction: "Give your initial position on this topic from your specialist perspective. 50-150 words. Be specific and direct."
     • Instruction to send findings via SendMessage

3. TaskCreate for each specialist

Step 4: Round 1 — Initial Positions

Collect all specialist positions via SendMessage. Wait for all to report.

If quick mode: Skip to Step 6 (synthesis).

If checkpoint or interactive mode: Present Round 1 positions to the user:

### Round 1: Initial Positions

**DocumentationWriter**: [position summary]
**SystemArchitect**: [position summary]
**WebResearcher**: [position summary]

Then ask via AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "Round 1 positions above. Any context to add or focus to redirect before the debate rounds?"
• Options: "Continue to debate", "Add context (free text)", "Skip to synthesis (Round 1 only)"

If user adds context, include it in Round 2 prompts. If user skips, go to Step 6.

Step 5: Rounds 2 & 3 — Debate

Round 2: Responses & Challenges

Send each specialist (via SendMessage) the full Round 1 transcript plus any user context:

Here are the Round 1 positions from all specialists:

[Full Round 1 transcript]

[User context if provided]

ROUND 2 INSTRUCTION: Respond to specific points from other specialists BY NAME. Challenge assumptions, build on ideas, point out what others missed. You MUST reference at least one other specialist's position. 50-150 words.

Collect all Round 2 responses.

If interactive mode: Present Round 2 and ask user before proceeding to Round 3.

Round 3: Synthesis & Convergence

Send each specialist the full Round 1 + Round 2 transcript:

Here is the full debate transcript (Rounds 1-2):

[Full transcript]

ROUND 3 INSTRUCTION: Given the full discussion, identify:
1. Where the council AGREES (convergence points)
2. Where you still DISAGREE and why
3. Your FINAL recommendation considering all perspectives
50-150 words. Be direct about your position.

Collect all Round 3 responses.

Step 6: Synthesize and Teardown

Produce the final verdict:

### Knowledge Council: [Topic]

**Roster**: [who participated]
**Rounds**: [how many completed]

#### Round 1: Initial Positions
[Brief summary of each specialist's opening take]

#### Round 2: Key Challenges
[The most substantive challenges and responses between specialists]

#### Round 3: Final Positions
[Where each specialist landed after the debate]

---

#### Areas of Convergence
Points where multiple specialists agreed, especially if they started from different positions.

#### Remaining Disagreements
Where specialists still differ — present both sides fairly.

#### Recommended Path
Synthesized recommendation that accounts for all perspectives. Prioritized action items.

After synthesis:

1. Send shutdown_request to each teammate
2. TeamDelete to clean up

Step 7: Sequential Fallback

If agent teams are not available:

1. Round 1: For each roster member, use Task tool (no team_name) with subagent_type: "{AgentName}". Collect results.
2. [Checkpoint]: Present positions, ask user (same as Step 4).
3. Round 2: For each, spawn new Task with Round 1 transcript + Round 2 instruction.
4. Round 3: For each, spawn new Task with Round 1+2 transcript + Round 3 instruction.
5. Synthesize using the same verdict format.

Each round's Tasks can run in parallel. Total: 3 rounds x N agents as separate Task calls.

Constraints

• The main session IS the moderator — do not spawn a council-moderator agent
• Provide full context in every prompt — agents don't inherit conversation or previous rounds
• In Round 2+, agents MUST reference other specialists by name — generic responses should be flagged
• If the topic is trivial or has an obvious answer, skip the council and just answer — tell the user a debate isn't warranted
• Maximum roster size: 6 (3 default + 3 optional). More voices doesn't mean better debate.
• VaultOrganizer may not be available in all runtimes — gracefully degrade if spawning fails