| name | council-verdicts |
| description | Starter: interpret a council run's verdict artifacts — quorum, dissent, cross-lab validity, and what to do next |
Council Verdict Interpretation (Starter Pack)
Read a completed council run's artifacts and explain what the verdicts actually mean before anyone acts on them.
When to use
A /octo:council run has finished and the user asks "so what did the council decide?" or pastes a summary.json path.
Steps
- Locate artifacts. Find the newest council output under
~/.claude-octopus/results/ (look for summary.json and per-seat verdict files). If none exist within the session window, say so; never invent a verdict.
- Check roster validity. From
summary.json, confirm each seat's real provider and model (the agy seat records its resolved model, not default). Flag same-lineage panels: two seats backed by the same model family weaken the verdict's independence.
- Tally the verdicts. Report the raw count (APPROVE / REJECT / ABSTAIN / REVISE) and whether quorum was met. A malformed or missing verdict from a seat counts as ABSTAIN, and the SubagentStop gate (
hooks/subagent-stop-gate.sh) may have flagged it; check the gate's usage log for quality scores.
- Surface dissent. Quote the strongest dissenting argument verbatim. A 2-1 split with a substantive dissent is a weaker mandate than 3-0; say which one this is.
- Recommend the action. Map the tally to a next step: unanimous APPROVE means proceed; majority with dissent means proceed with the dissent's concern as a follow-up item; majority REJECT means do not proceed and list what would change the outcome.
Guardrails
- Verdicts gate decisions; they do not execute them. Never auto-apply a council outcome to code.
- If seats disagree on facts (not judgment), the run is inconclusive; recommend a re-run with the factual dispute resolved first.
