| name | council |
| description | 3-Opus adversarial debate (proposer / critic / judge) for architectural decisions. Use when a decision is irreversible and benefits from explicit adversarial framing. |
/council — adversarial debate with roles
Three Opus instances with explicit roles run in parallel and then in sequence:
- Proposer — makes the strongest case FOR a specific position.
- Critic — makes the strongest case AGAINST any obvious position. Finds holes, edge cases, costs, alternative framings.
- Judge — weighs both, renders a final decision with rationale + flip conditions.
Proposer and critic run in parallel; judge runs after fan-in.
When to use
- Architectural decisions you can't easily reverse (database choice, framework migration, contract redesign).
- High-stakes questions where the obvious answer might be wrong.
- When you've drafted a plan and want a sanity-check before committing.
When NOT to use
- Routine choices — overkill.
- Time-sensitive decisions — council takes ~3× a single Opus pass.
- Questions of pure fact — that's /deepresearch.
Cost
3 Opus invocations in parallel + 1 sequential judge = ~4× a single Opus call. Cheap relative to a wrong architectural decision.
Distinct from
- /hive — N drafters merged into one answer; no adversarial framing.
- /audit — finds holes in existing code; council finds holes in proposed plans.
