democratic

name	democratic
description	All agents have equal voice; decisions made by majority vote.
metadata	{"owner":"interlateral","version":"1.0","weight":"medium"}
compatibility	Three or more explicitly selected agents. Default to Claude Code + Codex peers; Gemini and Antigravity are opt-in only when the human explicitly selects them.

Democratic

Purpose

A collaborative pattern where all agents have equal standing. Proposals are discussed openly and decisions are made by majority vote. No single agent has veto power.

Use mesh-comms-core first if direct peer notification has not already been proven. comms.md is the ledger, not the wake-up path.

Default roster: use Claude Code and Codex peers. Do not include Gemini CLI, Antigravity CLI, or Antigravity Desktop unless the human prompt explicitly names that peer.

Roles

Role	Description
MEMBER	Equal participant with one vote
FACILITATOR	(Optional) Manages discussion flow, calls votes

All MEMBERs are equal. FACILITATOR has no extra voting power, just keeps things moving.

Protocol

1. PROPOSAL: Any member may propose an idea or decision
2. DISCUSSION: Open discussion, all voices heard
3. CALL VOTE: Any member may call [VOTE] on a proposal
4. VOTING: All members vote [YES], [NO], or [ABSTAIN]
5. TALLY: Majority wins (>50% of non-abstaining votes)
6. RECORD: Decision recorded, move to next item
7. COMPLETE: When all items resolved, any member may call [DONE]

Proposal Format

[PROPOSAL - AGENT] #ID
TITLE: [Brief title]
DESCRIPTION: [What you're proposing]
RATIONALE: [Why this is a good idea]

Vote Call Format

[VOTE] on Proposal #ID
All members please vote.

Voting Format

[YES/NO/ABSTAIN - AGENT] on #ID
REASON: [Optional explanation]

Inputs

All inputs come from the prompt.

Optional:

• output: File path for decisions document
• work: File containing agenda/items to decide
• max_turns: Override default (30)

Prompt Format Examples

Minimal:

Use democratic to decide on project priorities.
Members: CC, CX, CC-peer-02.

With facilitator:

Use democratic for team retrospective.
FACILITATOR=CC. Members: CC, CX, CC-peer-02.
Items: What went well, What to improve, Action items.
Output: projects/retro/decisions.md

Safety

• max_turns: 30 (default)
• Tie handling: FACILITATOR breaks ties, or re-discuss
• Quorum: All members must vote (ABSTAIN counts as participation)
• Status logged to: direct notification plus comms.md

Example Session

[FACILITATOR - CC]
Welcome to the team decision meeting.
Agenda: Choose our next sprint focus.

[PROPOSAL - CX] #1
TITLE: Focus on Performance
DESCRIPTION: Spend next sprint on optimization and benchmarking
RATIONALE: Users complaining about slow load times

[PROPOSAL - CC-peer-02] #2
TITLE: Focus on Security Audit
DESCRIPTION: Review and harden authentication/authorization
RATIONALE: We're handling sensitive data, need to be proactive

[DISCUSSION - CC]
Both valid concerns. Performance affects UX daily.
Security is critical but less visible until it's a problem.

[DISCUSSION - CX]
Security audit could be done by external team.
Performance needs our specific codebase knowledge.

[DISCUSSION - CC-peer-02]
External audit is expensive. We know our code best.
But I see the performance point.

[VOTE] on Proposal #1 (Performance Focus)

[YES - CC] on #1
REASON: Direct user impact, measurable improvement

[YES - CX] on #1
REASON: I proposed it, still believe it's priority

[NO - CC-peer-02] on #1
REASON: Security should come first, but I accept the group decision

RESULT: #1 PASSES (2-1)

[FACILITATOR - CC]
Performance focus approved for next sprint.
CC-peer-02, we'll schedule security audit for sprint after next.

[DONE] - All agenda items resolved.

Final Status Format

SKILL: democratic
STATUS: DONE
TURNS: 10
OUTPUT: projects/sprint/decisions.md
PARTICIPANTS: CC, CX, CC-peer-02
PROPOSALS: 2
VOTES_HELD: 1
DECISIONS_MADE: 1