| name | paseo-committee |
| description | Form a committee of two high-reasoning agents to step back, do root cause analysis, and produce a plan. Use when stuck, looping, tunnel-visioning, or facing a hard planning problem. |
| user-invocable | true |
Committee Skill
Two agents from contrasting providers, fresh context, planning a solution in parallel. They stay alive for review after implementation.
The purpose is to step back, not double down. The committee may propose a completely different approach.
User's additional context: $ARGUMENTS
Prerequisites
Read the paseo skill. Before choosing committee members, read ~/.paseo/orchestration-preferences.json unless the user explicitly named providers in this request. Do not create committee agents until you have read it.
Contrast is the point of a committee, so pick across providers deliberately using the configured preferences rather than hardcoded defaults.
Composition
Two members with different reasoning styles, selected from orchestration preferences:
- one planning/research-strength provider
- one contrasting high-reasoning provider
Override only when the user explicitly asks for different members.
Hard rules
-
No edits. Every prompt to a committee member ends with the no-edits suffix:
This is analysis only. Do NOT edit, create, or delete any files. Do NOT write code.
-
Trust the wait. Do not poll, send hurry-ups, or interrupt. GPT-5.4 can reason 15–30 minutes; Opus does extended thinking. Long waits mean it found something worth thinking about.
-
You are the middleman. Drive plan → implement → review without yielding to the user, except for divergences that need their call.
Phase 1: Plan
Write a problem-level prompt:
- High-level goal and acceptance criteria
- Constraints
- Symptoms (if a bug)
- What you tried and why it failed
- Explicit: "do root cause analysis"
- Explicit: "state assumptions, ask why three levels deep, check whether you're patching a symptom or removing the problem"
Create both agents in parallel via Paseo with [Committee] <task> titles and the same prompt. Wait for both — not just whichever finishes first.
Read both responses. Challenge them — do not accept at face value:
- "Why does happen? Symptom or cause?"
- Verify any assumption the plan makes about the code.
- "What did you considered and reject?"
Send follow-ups until the plan addresses root cause.
Synthesize:
- Convergence → unified plan.
- Significant divergence → involve the user.
Confirm the merged plan with both members. Multi-turn until consensus.
Phase 2: Implement
Default: implement yourself. If the user said "delegate", launch one impl agent and pass the merged plan.
The committee stays clean — not involved in implementation.
Phase 3: Review
Send the diff to the committee:
Implementation is done. Review changes against the plan. Flag drift or missing pieces.
Apply feedback yourself, or send to the impl agent. Repeat 2 → 3 until consensus.
After ~10 iterations without convergence, start a fresh committee with the full history of what was tried — the current committee's context may have drifted too far.
