| name | council |
| description | 4-perspective decision evaluation for architecture choices. Triggers: council, evaluate decision, pros cons, multi-angle, alternatives. |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | high |
| argument-hint | [decision question or proposal to evaluate] |
| agent | orchestrator |
| context | fork |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Agent |
Decision Council
$ARGUMENTS
Evaluate a decision from 4 distinct perspectives using parallel sub-agents, then synthesize a weighted recommendation.
Usage
/council [decision question or proposal to evaluate]
What This Command Does
- Parses the decision question from user input
- Gathers codebase context relevant to the decision
- Spawns 4 parallel sub-agents — each analyzing from a different perspective
- Synthesizes all perspectives into a structured recommendation with decision matrix
MANDATORY: You MUST use the Agent tool
DO NOT analyze the decision yourself. Your job is to parse the question, spawn 4 sub-agents in parallel via the Agent tool, and synthesize their outputs. If you attempt to provide all perspectives inline, you have failed.
Process
1. Parse the Decision
Extract from the user's input:
- The proposal — what is being considered
- The alternatives — what the options are (if not stated, infer the implicit alternative: status quo)
- The context — what project/codebase/situation this applies to
If the question is too vague to evaluate, ask ONE clarifying question before proceeding.
2. Gather Context
Before spawning agents, quickly scan the codebase for relevant context:
- Current tech stack, dependencies, patterns in use
- Existing code related to the decision area
- Configuration, infrastructure, or architectural choices already made
Include this context in each sub-agent prompt so perspectives are grounded in reality.
3. Spawn 4 Sub-Agents in Parallel (REQUIRED)
Call the Agent tool 4 times in a single response — all agents MUST launch in the same message to run in parallel.
| Agent | Role | Directive |
|---|
| Advocate | Case FOR | Present the strongest case FOR the proposal. Find evidence, benefits, success stories. Reference relevant code/patterns in the codebase. Be persuasive but honest. |
| Critic | Case AGAINST | Present the strongest case AGAINST. Find risks, hidden costs, failure modes, alternatives that might be better. Be thorough but fair. |
| Pragmatist | Trade-offs | Evaluate practical trade-offs: implementation cost, timeline, team capacity, maintenance burden, migration risk, operational complexity. Ground estimates in the actual codebase size and patterns. |
| User-Proxy | User impact | Consider end-user and customer impact: UX changes, downtime during migration, performance implications, breaking changes, adoption friction, documentation needs. |
Each agent prompt MUST include:
- The original decision question
- The codebase context gathered in step 2
- The specific perspective this agent owns
- Instruction to search the codebase for supporting evidence
- Constraint: 200-400 words, concrete evidence over abstract arguments
4. Synthesize
After all 4 agents complete, combine their outputs into the structured format below. Do NOT simply concatenate — identify agreements, contradictions, and conditional factors across perspectives.
Output Format
## Decision Council: [Question]
### Advocate (FOR)
[Summary of arguments for — key benefits and evidence]
### Critic (AGAINST)
[Summary of arguments against — key risks and alternatives]
### Pragmatist (TRADE-OFFS)
[Practical considerations — cost, timeline, complexity]
### User-Proxy (USER IMPACT)
[End-user perspective — UX, performance, breaking changes]
### Synthesis
**Recommendation:** [FOR / AGAINST / CONDITIONAL]
**Confidence:** [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
**Key condition:** [Primary factor that would change the recommendation]
**Where perspectives agree:** [Common ground across agents]
**Where perspectives conflict:** [Key disagreements and why]
### Decision Matrix
| Factor | Weight | FOR score (1-5) | AGAINST score (1-5) |
|--------|--------|-----------------|---------------------|
| Technical merit | [H/M/L] | [score] | [score] |
| Risk | [H/M/L] | [score] | [score] |
| Cost | [H/M/L] | [score] | [score] |
| Timeline | [H/M/L] | [score] | [score] |
| User impact | [H/M/L] | [score] | [score] |
| **Weighted total** | | **[total]** | **[total]** |
Rules
- Each sub-agent must search the codebase for relevant evidence — no purely abstract arguments
- Sub-agents must be honest within their role — the Advocate should acknowledge weaknesses, the Critic should acknowledge strengths
- Keep each perspective to 200-400 words — density over length
- The synthesis must add value beyond summarizing — identify the decisive factor
- If the decision is clearly one-sided after analysis, say so — don't manufacture false balance
Anti-Patterns
- Don't skip the codebase scan — ungrounded opinions are worthless
- Don't let all 4 perspectives say the same thing — enforce distinct angles
- Don't give a wishy-washy "it depends" synthesis — commit to a recommendation with conditions
- Don't ignore the status quo — "do nothing" is always an alternative
READ-ONLY
This skill evaluates decisions. It does NOT implement changes.
