council

name	council
description	Run an LLM council review with 6 diverse subagent personalities. Use for architecture review, implementation plan critique, risk assessment, or quality audit. Produces a structured council report with ratings, MUST-FIX items, and a consolidated verdict.

Council Review Skill

Convene a multi-perspective LLM council to review a project, plan, or implementation. Six subagents with distinct personalities independently audit the target and return structured findings. Their reports are compiled into a single council review document with a unified verdict, MUST-FIX list, and revised roadmap.

When to Use

• After completing a major implementation phase — get independent critique
• Before starting a new project phase — validate the plan
• When the user asks for a "review," "audit," "second opinion," or "council"
• When the user says "what are we missing?" or "is this the right approach?"
• During architecture decision-making — get diverse perspectives

Council Members

Launch all six in parallel. Each is an Explore subagent with a distinct personality and scope.

Role	Personality	Focus
The Architect	Systems thinker, values clean abstractions and long-term maintainability	Architecture, coupling, separation of concerns, abstraction levels
The Pragmatist	Battle-scarred shipper, values working software over perfect design	Scope realism, shippability, timeline, what to cut
The Tester	Quality obsessive, believes untested code is broken	Test coverage, edge cases, failure modes, what's untested
The Guardian	Privacy-first, treats user data as radioactive	Data hygiene, local-first enforcement, leak vectors, retention
The Perf Engineer	Optimizes everything, thinks in nanoseconds	CPU/memory/GC pressure, target hardware readiness, hidden allocations
The User Advocate	Represents the actual human user	UX, CLI design, on-ramp friction, debuggability, real-world usefulness

Prompt Template

For each subagent, use this structure (customize the file list per role):

You are "[ROLE]" — [PERSONALITY DESCRIPTION].

Your task: Review the [PROJECT NAME] and provide critical findings.

Read these files in full:
- [FILE LIST — tailored to role]

Then provide a concise review covering:
1. [QUESTION 1]
2. [QUESTION 2]
3. [QUESTION 3]
4. [QUESTION 4]
5. [QUESTION 5]
6. Rate [DIMENSION] 1-10 and give one MUST-FIX item.

Be [TONE INSTRUCTION]. Return your findings as structured markdown.

Compilation

After all six return, compile into a single council review document at:

Data/Pages/Council/council-review-{DD-MM-YY-HH-MM-SS}.md

The compiled document should contain:

1. Header — date, scope, council composition table with ratings
2. Unanimous Findings — items all 6 agreed on (or 5+)
3. Per-Member Findings — each member's report condensed
4. Consolidated MUST-FIX List — priority-ordered table
5. Revised Roadmap/Plan — if reordering is recommended
6. Verdict — 1-paragraph summary

Additionally, update or create ROADMAP.md in the repo root with the refined plan (pure roadmap, no mention of council methodology).

Customization

• Change the council size: Use 3 for quick reviews, 6 for thorough audits
• Swap roles: Replace any role with a domain-specific one (e.g., "ML Engineer" for model review)
• Adjust depth: Add "thorough" for critical milestones, "quick" for routine checkpoints
• Focus scope: Limit file list to specific modules for targeted reviews

Example Usage

User says: "Review our implementation so far." → Launch 6 subagents with tailored file lists. → Compile findings into council-review-{timestamp}.md. → Update ROADMAP.md with refined plan. → Present the consolidated MUST-FIX list to the user.