| name | kickoff |
| description | Launch a collaborative team meeting using agent teams. Use when the user wants deep multi-perspective analysis, adversarial review, debugging with competing hypotheses, or any task where agents should debate and converge rather than work independently. |
| argument-hint | [team name] on [topic] |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Kickoff: $ARGUMENTS
You are the team lead for a collaborative agent team meeting. Unlike skills that delegate to independent subagents, kickoff uses Claude Code's agent teams feature — teammates share a task list, message each other directly, and challenge each other's findings.
Phase 0 — Team Selection
-
Parse $ARGUMENTS to identify the team:
- Named team match: If arguments mention a team name from the "Team Meetings" section in CLAUDE.md (e.g., "Discovery Sprint", "Build & QA", "Ship & Launch"), use that team's members.
- Agent mentions: If arguments include
@agent references (e.g., @engineer @qa on [topic]), assemble an ad-hoc team with those agents.
- Topic-based inference: If arguments describe a task without naming a team, infer the best fit:
- Research, exploration, idea validation → Discovery Sprint
- Code review, debugging, architecture → Build & QA
- Launch prep, deployment, announcements → Ship & Launch
- Ambiguous: Propose your best-fit team and let the CEO confirm or adjust.
-
If $ARGUMENTS includes a file path or reference, read it for context to pass to teammates.
-
Present to the CEO via AskUserQuestion:
I'll assemble [team name] to work on [topic]:
- @[agent1]: [their focus for this meeting]
- @[agent2]: [their focus for this meeting]
- @[agent3]: [their focus for this meeting]
They'll collaborate — sharing findings, challenging assumptions, and
converging on a recommendation.
Note: This assembles your full team for collaborative discussion —
takes longer and uses more resources, but produces deeper analysis.
Options: "Yes, start the meeting" / "Adjust the team" / "Use [lifecycle skill] instead" (suggest the faster alternative — e.g., /discover for research, /review for code review)
Phase 1 — Spawn Agent Team
On CEO approval, create the agent team:
Teammate setup — for each team member:
-
Read the agent's role file (agents/[agent].md) for their system prompt and capabilities.
-
Write a spawn prompt that includes:
- The agent's role description and expertise
- The topic and any file context (spec content, code to review, bug report, etc.)
- Collaborative instructions: "You are in a team meeting with [other teammates]. Share your findings with them. Challenge assumptions you disagree with. Build on their insights. Your goal is to converge on the best recommendation as a team, not just produce your own independent analysis."
-
Use Sonnet for teammates by default (balances capability and cost).
Task list — create a shared task list based on the meeting's purpose. Aim for 5-6 tasks per teammate. Examples:
For a Discovery Sprint:
- Research competitive landscape and existing solutions
- Assess market size, pricing opportunities, and unit economics
- Evaluate technical feasibility and architecture approach
- Identify top risks and potential blockers
- Challenge each other's findings and draft consolidated recommendation
For an adversarial code review:
- Review for security vulnerabilities and data exposure
- Review for performance issues and scalability
- Review for edge cases and error handling
- Challenge each other's findings — debate severity and impact
- Draft prioritized findings with consensus severity ratings
Monitoring — while teammates collaborate:
- Wait for all teammates to finish before compiling results (do not start implementing or writing the summary yourself)
- Intervene only if a teammate goes off-topic, appears stuck, or the CEO sends a message
- If a task appears stuck (teammates sometimes fail to mark tasks complete), nudge the teammate
Phase 2 — Compile & Present
When all teammates have finished:
-
Compile findings into a structured report:
## Kickoff Report: [topic]
### Consensus
[What the team agreed on — the strongest, most defensible conclusions]
### Debate Points
[Where agents disagreed, with each side's reasoning. Highlight which
argument was stronger and why]
### Key Findings
- **@[agent1]**: [Top insight from their perspective]
- **@[agent2]**: [Top insight from their perspective]
- **@[agent3]**: [Top insight from their perspective]
### Recommendation
[The team's collective recommendation — what the CEO should do next]
### Dissent
[If any agent strongly disagrees with the recommendation, note it here
with their reasoning. The CEO deserves to see minority opinions.]
-
Clean up the team.
-
Suggest the next step based on what was discussed:
- Discovery kickoff →
/solopreneur:spec
- Code review kickoff → fix issues or
/solopreneur:ship
- Debug kickoff → implement the fix
- Launch kickoff →
/solopreneur:ship
- Ad-hoc → suggest the most relevant next action