council

name	council
description	Run a cross-model deliberation: pose the same question to multiple model bindings (e.g. Claude, GPT, Gemini), have them propose independently, then critique each other, then synthesize — with explicit anti-conformity safeguards. Use ONLY for high-uncertainty / high-stakes decisions; not for every step.
argument-hint	A Question object: {question, context, decisionClass, modelBindings[], maxRounds?}. Optional: --record-dissent

Council Skill — Cross-Model Deliberation

Formalizes the intuition that asking several models the same hard question — and having them argue — tends to produce a stronger answer than any one alone. Used selectively by the planner when a decision is high-uncertainty, high-stakes, or contested by sub-agents.

When to use (and when NOT to)

✅ Use when:

• The decision is high-stakes (will gate a T3/T4 action) and the planner is uncertain.
• Two sub-agents have returned contradictory results on overlapping work.
• The task is ambiguous and the planner cannot pick between several reasonable decompositions.
• A research condition is C5 (HITL + Council enabled).

❌ Do not use when:

• The decision is routine and a single capable model handles it (Council multiplies cost).
• The task is strictly sequential with no real branching choice (debate adds latency, not value).
• You are tempted to use it as a confidence-boosting ritual on every step — that is the failure mode the literature warns about (see conclave-spec.md §10).

The planner's invocation policy: planner-agent/planner-runner/references/dispatch-protocol.md.

Protocol

sequenceDiagram
    participant PL as Planner
    participant A as Claude-bound
    participant B as GPT-bound
    participant C as Gemini-bound
    Note over PL,C: Round 1 — Independent proposals (NO cross-talk)
    PL->>A: question + context
    PL->>B: question + context
    PL->>C: question + context
    A-->>PL: proposal_A
    B-->>PL: proposal_B
    C-->>PL: proposal_C
    Note over PL,C: Round 2 — Critique
    PL->>A: critique {B, C}
    PL->>B: critique {A, C}
    PL->>C: critique {A, B}
    A-->>PL: revised_A + dissent notes
    B-->>PL: revised_B + dissent notes
    C-->>PL: revised_C + dissent notes
    Note over PL: Reconcile / synthesize (record minority report)
    PL-->>PL: decision + confidence + minority_report

Step-by-step

1. Independent first pass (anti-anchoring)

Send the question + context to every model in parallel, with no visibility into the others' answers. This is non-negotiable. The most common debate failure mode is anchoring on whoever answered first.

Each model returns a proposal:

{
  "modelBinding": "claude-opus-4.7",
  "answer": "...",
  "rationale": "...",
  "confidence": 0.62,
  "assumptions": ["..."],
  "risks": ["..."]
}

2. Structured critique round

Show each model the other proposals (de-identified — strip model names so critique is on content, not on prestige) and ask:

"Here are N independent proposals to the same question. For each, identify (a) one thing it gets right, (b) the strongest objection, and (c) what evidence would change your mind. Then revise your own answer if appropriate."

Each model returns {revisedAnswer, critiques[], changedMind: boolean, residualDissent}.

3. Synthesis (with mandatory minority report)

The planner produces:

{
  "decision": "...",
  "majorityRationale": "...",
  "confidence": 0.0,
  "convergence": "unanimous" | "majority" | "split" | "no-consensus",
  "minorityReport": {
    "summary": "what the dissenting view was, kept verbatim where possible",
    "raisedBy": ["gpt-5"],
    "strongestPoint": "..."
  },
  "rounds": 2,
  "tokensSpent": { "input": 0, "output": 0, "thinking": 0 }
}

The minority report is mandatory whenever convergence is not unanimous. Discarding it is the exact harm the literature flags ("majority pressure can suppress a correct minority" — conclave-spec.md §10).

4. Confidence-gated escalation

confidence	convergence	Action
≥ 0.85	unanimous or strong majority	Planner adopts the decision; logs and proceeds.
0.6 – 0.85	majority	Planner adopts but flags the minority report; if the next action is T3/T4 it goes through the gate as usual.
< 0.6	any	Escalate to the principal. Do not auto-proceed. Council confidence below this threshold means the models themselves do not know.
any	no-consensus after maxRounds	Escalate. Do not have the planner "tie-break" — that just makes the planner's model the deciding vote and defeats the diversity.

Anti-conformity safeguards (summary)

1. Independent first pass. No cross-talk in round 1.
2. De-identified critique. Strip model names in round 2.
3. Minority report is preserved, not summarized away.
4. Confidence-gated escalation. Low confidence → human, not majority vote.
5. Selective invocation. Council is invoked only on flagged decision classes, never on routine steps.
6. Diversity-first model selection. Prefer 3 models from different families over 3 instances of the same model. (Same-family instances often agree by default, eliminating the point of debate.)

Provenance

Council deliberations emit:

• council_convened (with the question + participating model bindings)
• council_proposal × N
• council_critique × N
• council_synthesis (with confidence, convergence, minority report)

Every event references the same threadId so the deliberation is reconstructable from the log alone. See shared/provenance/SKILL.md.

Cost accounting

Council multiplies tokens by roughly N × rounds. The planner must respect the run's tokenBudget if set, and may down-scope (fewer models, fewer rounds) or skip Council if the budget would be exceeded. Log this as a council_skipped reason for the research harness.