board-of-directors

name	board-of-directors
description	Simulate a 5-member expert board deliberation for major decisions. Use when evaluating plans, architecture choices, feature designs, or any decision requiring multi-perspective expert analysis. Triggers: 'board review', 'get expert opinions', 'board meeting', 'director evaluation', 'consensus review'.

Board of Directors Simulation

Simulates a 5-member expert board that deliberates, debates, and reaches consensus on major decisions. Each director brings domain expertise and can challenge other directors' opinions.

The Board

Role	Domain	Evaluates
Chief Architect (CA)	Technical	System design, patterns, scalability, tech debt, code quality
Chief Product Officer (CPO)	Product	User value, market fit, feature priority, scope, usability
Chief Security Officer (CSO)	Security	Vulnerabilities, compliance, data protection, risk assessment
Chief Operations Officer (COO)	Execution	Feasibility, timeline, resources, process, deployment
Chief Experience Officer (CXO)	Experience	UX/UI, accessibility, user journey, design consistency

When to Invoke the Board

• Track Planning — Before starting major tracks
• Architecture Decisions — ADRs, system design choices
• Feature Evaluation — New feature proposals
• Risk Assessment — Security or operational concerns
• Conflict Resolution — When leads disagree

Deliberation Protocol

Phase 1: Individual Assessment (Parallel)

Each director reviews the proposal independently:

DISPATCH via Task tool (all 5 in parallel):
  - CA: Evaluate technical aspects
  - CPO: Evaluate product aspects
  - CSO: Evaluate security aspects
  - COO: Evaluate operational aspects
  - CXO: Evaluate experience aspects

Each director outputs:

{
  "director": "CA",
  "verdict": "APPROVE" | "CONCERNS" | "REJECT",
  "score": 1-10,
  "key_points": ["..."],
  "concerns": ["..."],
  "questions_for_board": ["Question for CPO about...", "Challenge to COO on..."]
}

Phase 2: Board Discussion (Sequential via Message Bus)

Directors respond to each other's questions and challenges:

MESSAGE BUS: conductor/tracks/{track}/.message-bus/board/

1. Post all Phase 1 assessments to board/assessments.json
2. Each director reads others' assessments
3. Directors post rebuttals/responses to board/discussion.jsonl
4. Max 3 rounds of discussion

Discussion message format:

{
  "from": "CA",
  "to": "CPO",
  "type": "CHALLENGE" | "AGREE" | "QUESTION" | "CLARIFY",
  "message": "Regarding your concern about scope...",
  "changes_my_verdict": true | false
}

Phase 3: Final Vote

After discussion, each director casts final vote:

{
  "director": "CA",
  "final_verdict": "APPROVE" | "REJECT",
  "confidence": 0.0-1.0,
  "conditions": ["Must add rate limiting", "Needs load testing"],
  "dissent_noted": false
}

Phase 4: Board Resolution

Aggregate votes and produce board decision:

Scenario	Resolution
5-0 or 4-1 APPROVE	APPROVED — Proceed with any conditions noted
3-2 APPROVE	APPROVED WITH REVIEW — Proceed but schedule follow-up
3-2 REJECT	REJECTED — Address major concerns first
4-1 or 5-0 REJECT	REJECTED — Significant rework needed
2-2-1 (tie with abstain)	Chief Architect (CA) casts tiebreaking vote based on technical merit

Phase 5: Persist Decision (MANDATORY)

After reaching resolution, you MUST persist the decision to files:

1. Create directory: Use run_shell_command mkdir -p conductor/tracks/{trackId}/.message-bus/board/
2. write_file resolution.md with the Board Output Format (below)
3. write_file session-{timestamp}.json:

   {"session_id": "...", "verdict": "...", "vote_summary": {...}, "conditions": [...], "timestamp": "..."}
   

Then return ONLY this concise summary to the orchestrator:

{"verdict": "APPROVED|REJECTED|ESCALATE", "conditions": ["..."], "vote": "4-1"}

Orchestrator Integration

Invoke Board from Conductor

async function invokeBoardReview(proposal: string, context: object) {
  // 1. Initialize board message bus
  await initBoardMessageBus(trackId);

  // 2. Phase 1: Parallel assessment
  const assessments = await Promise.all([
    Task({
      description: "CA board assessment",
      prompt: `You are the Chief Architect on the Board of Directors.

        PROPOSAL: ${proposal}
        CONTEXT: ${JSON.stringify(context)}

        Follow the directors/chief-architect.md profile.

        Output your assessment as JSON.`
    }),
    Task({ description: "CPO board assessment", ... }),
    Task({ description: "CSO board assessment", ... }),
    Task({ description: "COO board assessment", ... }),
    Task({ description: "CXO board assessment", ... })
  ]);

  // 3. Phase 2: Discussion rounds
  await runBoardDiscussion(assessments, maxRounds: 3);

  // 4. Phase 3: Final vote
  const votes = await collectFinalVotes();

  // 5. Phase 4: Resolution
  return aggregateBoardDecision(votes);
}

Board Output Format

## Board of Directors Resolution

**Proposal**: [Brief description]
**Session**: [timestamp]
**Verdict**: APPROVED | APPROVED WITH REVIEW | REJECTED | ESCALATE

### Vote Summary
| Director | Vote | Confidence | Key Condition |
|----------|------|------------|---------------|
| CA | APPROVE | 0.9 | Add caching layer |
| CPO | APPROVE | 0.8 | Validate with usability check |
| CSO | CONCERNS→APPROVE | 0.7 | Security audit before launch |
| COO | APPROVE | 0.85 | Need 2-week buffer |
| CXO | APPROVE | 0.95 | Accessibility is solid |

**Final: 5-0 APPROVE**

### Conditions for Approval
1. Add caching layer for API responses (CA)
2. Complete security audit before production (CSO)
3. Buffer timeline by 2 weeks (COO)

### Discussion Highlights
- CA challenged CPO on scope creep → CPO agreed to defer Phase 2
- CSO raised auth concern → CA proposed token rotation solution
- CXO praised accessibility approach, no concerns

### Dissenting Opinions
None recorded.

---
*Board session complete. Proceed with implementation.*

Director Skills

Each director has specialized evaluation criteria. See:

• directors/chief-architect.md — Technical excellence
• directors/chief-product-officer.md — Product value
• directors/chief-security-officer.md — Security posture
• directors/chief-operations-officer.md — Execution reality
• directors/chief-experience-officer.md — User experience

Quick Invocation

For rapid board review without full deliberation:

/board-review [proposal]

Returns: Quick assessment from each director (no discussion phase)

For full deliberation:

/board-meeting [proposal]

Returns: Full 4-phase deliberation with discussion

Integration with Evaluate-Loop

The board can be invoked at key checkpoints:

Checkpoint	Board Involvement
EVALUATE_PLAN	Full board meeting for major tracks
EVALUATE_EXECUTION	Quick review for implementation quality
Pre-Launch	Security + Operations deep dive
Post-Mortem	All directors analyze what went wrong

Message Bus Structure

.message-bus/board/
├── session-{timestamp}.json    # Session metadata
├── assessments.json            # Phase 1 outputs
├── discussion.jsonl            # Phase 2 messages
├── votes.json                  # Phase 3 final votes
└── resolution.md               # Phase 4 board decision