[IMPORTANT] MUST ATTENTION use council only for multi-option, hard-to-reverse, high-stakes decisions. NEVER council trivial, factual, reversible, or single-option questions. [IMPORTANT] MUST ATTENTION spawn 5 advisors in parallel, then 5 fresh peer reviewers in parallel, then chairman synthesis. [IMPORTANT] MUST ATTENTION require evidence for code/architecture claims: file:line, graph trace, or explicit "insufficient evidence."

LLM Council

Quick Summary

Goal: Adversarial decision support for costly wrong choices. Five advisors analyze independently, five fresh reviewers critique anonymously, chairman produces final verdict + report artifacts.

Workflow: Gate → Frame → 5 parallel advisors → anonymized 5-reviewer peer review → chairman synthesis → paired HTML/MD reports.

Key Rules:

MUST ATTENTION use cheaper ladder first: /why-review → /plan-validate → /llm-council.
MUST ATTENTION graph-trace code/architecture questions when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
NEVER let earlier advisor responses bleed into later advisors; parallel spawn required.
ALWAYS mark verdict degraded if fewer than 5 usable advisor responses return.
ALWAYS sync edits to .agents/skills/llm-council/SKILL.md.

Phase 0: Council Gate

Run before advisors.

Gate	Required	Route if false
Multi-option	>=2 viable paths	Single-option rationale → `/why-review`
Hard to reverse	Architecture, stack, pricing, hiring, irreversible refactor	Reversible choice → answer directly
Real stakes	Wrong call costs >=1 week, money, trust, or strategic position	Low stakes → answer directly
Multi-angle value	Contrarian/first-principles/upside/outside/execution views change answer	Factual/single-domain → answer directly

If any gate fails, state failed gate + lighter route. NEVER council "should I use markdown."

Good prompts: pricing model, positioning angle, pivot, hiring vs automation, architecture bet, high-risk launch, irreversible refactor. Bad prompts: factual lookup, simple yes/no, content generation, summarization, bugfix, package upgrade, routine refactor, anything decidable with one grep.

Advisor Dimensions

Each advisor = thinking dimension, not persona costume. One strong angle each.

Advisor	Think
Contrarian	What fails? What assumption kills plan?
First Principles Thinker	What problem are we solving? Which assumptions need rebuild?
Expansionist	What upside, adjacent opportunity, undervalued path is missing?
Outsider	What confuses someone with no context? What jargon hides value?
Executor	What can happen Monday morning? Fastest validated path?

Tensions: Contrarian vs Expansionist, First Principles vs Executor, Outsider grounds both.

Step 1: Frame Question

When user says "council this", enrich then frame.

Context discovery budget: <=30 seconds; read 2-3 high-signal files.

Search order: CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md; docs/project-config.json; docs/project-reference/project-structure-reference.md; matching docs/project-reference/*{domain-entities,backend-patterns,frontend-patterns,code-review-rules}*; docs/specs/; memory/; user-referenced files; plans/reports/council-*; domain data (pricing -> revenue, architecture -> service map, tech stack -> dependencies).

Code/architecture gate: If question references existing code, services, files, or blast radius, run before framing:

python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <key-file> --direction both --json

Skip graph only when .code-graph/graph.db missing or question is non-code.

Framed question includes: core decision, user context, workspace evidence, stakes, constraints, known unknowns. Do not add your opinion. Ask exactly one clarifying question only if prompt is too vague.

Step 2: Advisor Round

Spawn all 5 advisors simultaneously. Each gets identity, framed question, evidence rules, output constraints.

You are [Advisor Name] on an LLM Council.
Thinking style: [advisor dimension from table]

Question:
---
[framed question]
---

EVIDENCE RULES:
- Code/architecture claims require `file:line`, graph trace, or "I don't have enough evidence yet."
- If existing code context is needed, run:
  python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json
  python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json
- Cite trace output for blast radius, callers, downstream impact.
- Confidence: 95-100% full trace | 80-94% main paths | 60-79% partial | <60% do not recommend.
- Do NOT speculate. Name missing evidence instead.

Respond from assigned angle. Direct, specific, unbalanced by design. Other advisors cover other angles.
Length: 150-300 words plus one-line confidence declaration. No preamble.

Step 3: Peer Review Round

Collect responses. Randomize/anonymize as Response A-E. Spawn 5 fresh reviewers in parallel.

You are reviewing an LLM Council.

Question:
---
[framed question]
---

Anonymized responses:
**Response A:** [response]
**Response B:** [response]
**Response C:** [response]
**Response D:** [response]
**Response E:** [response]

Answer:
1. Strongest response? Why?
2. Biggest blind spot? What is missing?
3. What did all five miss?

Reference responses by letter. Be specific. Under 200 words.

Step 4: Chairman Synthesis

Chairman receives original question, framed question, de-anonymized advisor responses, peer reviews, anonymization map.

You are Chairman of an LLM Council. Synthesize 5 advisors + peer reviews into final verdict.

Question:
---
[framed question]
---

ADVISOR RESPONSES:
**Contrarian:** [response]
**First Principles Thinker:** [response]
**Expansionist:** [response]
**Outsider:** [response]
**Executor:** [response]

PEER REVIEWS:
[all peer reviews]

Produce exact structure:
## Where the Council Agrees
[Independent convergences; high-confidence signals.]
## Where the Council Clashes
[Genuine disagreements. Present both sides; explain why reasonable advisors disagree.]
## Blind Spots the Council Caught
[Only emerged through peer review.]
## The Recommendation
[Clear direct recommendation. Not "it depends."]
## The One Thing to Do First
[Single concrete next step.]

Be direct. Do not hedge. Give clarity unavailable from one perspective.

Quality loop: If chairman misses required sections, ignores degraded-quality state, or makes unsupported code claims, repair with fresh chairman prompt. Max 3 repair rounds; then escalate with missing evidence.

Step 5: Report Artifacts

Write both files; create plans/reports/ if missing.

plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html
plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.md

{YYMMDD-HHMM} = session datetime. {kebab-slug} = 3-6 word question descriptor. Both share prefix. NEVER write artifacts to workspace root or docs/.

HTML: self-contained inline CSS, question top, prominent chairman verdict, agreement/disagreement visual, collapsed advisor responses, collapsed peer review highlights, footer timestamp/topic, professional briefing style, open after generation.

Markdown transcript: original question, framed question, all advisor responses, all peer reviews, anonymization mapping, chairman synthesis.

Output Format

Council complete.

Report: plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html
Transcript: plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.md

Verdict: [1-2 sentence chairman recommendation]
First action: [single next step]

Workflow Integration

Opt-in escalation hook from host skills. NEVER wire into bugfix, refactor, migration, package-upgrade, or test-* workflows.

Host skill	Mode	Default	Gate
`architecture-design`	Always-offer after `## Next Steps`	Skip	User chooses
`tech-stack-research`	Always-offer after `## Next Steps`	Skip	User chooses
`why-review`	Conditional on active plan/PBI frontmatter	Escalate when gate fires	8-OR gate
`prioritize`	Conditional on ranking output	Escalate when gate fires	RICE top-2 within 15%, MoSCoW tie, or stakeholder disagreement

`why-review` Gate Schema

Gate fires when ANY field true. Absent fields default no-fire; gate opt-in via frontmatter, never opt-out.

Field	Convention	Fires when
`cross_service_impact`	`NONE` / `PARTIAL` / `FULL`	value != `NONE`
`breaking_changes`	bool	true
`complexity`	`low` / `medium` / `high` / `critical`	`high`, `critical`, or `story_points >= 13`
`new_framework`	bool	true
`irreversible`	bool	true
`security_critical`	bool	true
`performance_critical`	bool	true
`cost_high`	bool	true

Host prompt copy MUST cite cheaper rungs: /why-review, /plan-validate, /llm-council.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use council only for multi-option, hard-to-reverse, high-stakes decisions. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION spawn 5 advisors in parallel, then 5 fresh peer reviewers in parallel, then chairman synthesis. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION require evidence for code/architecture claims: file:line, graph trace, or explicit "insufficient evidence." IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION mark verdict degraded if fewer than 5 usable advisor responses return. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION write paired HTML + Markdown artifacts under plans/reports/ and open HTML. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION sync every canonical edit to .agents/skills/llm-council/SKILL.md.

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"This decision feels important"	Gate it: multi-option, hard-to-reverse, real stakes, multi-angle value.
"One advisor can handle it"	Council value comes from independent angles + anonymous peer review.
"Sequential spawn is simpler"	Sequential spawn contaminates independence. Parallel spawn required.
"Four advisors is close enough"	Missing angle changes verdict quality. Mark degraded.
"Evidence would slow us down"	Unsupported code/architecture claims are speculation. Use graph/file proof or say insufficient evidence.

name	llm-council
description	[Decision Support] Use when pressure-testing irreversible, high-stakes decisions with adversarial AI advisors.

[IMPORTANT] MUST ATTENTION use council only for multi-option, hard-to-reverse, high-stakes decisions. NEVER council trivial, factual, reversible, or single-option questions. [IMPORTANT] MUST ATTENTION spawn 5 advisors in parallel, then 5 fresh peer reviewers in parallel, then chairman synthesis. [IMPORTANT] MUST ATTENTION require evidence for code/architecture claims: file:line, graph trace, or explicit "insufficient evidence."

LLM Council

Quick Summary

Goal: Adversarial decision support for costly wrong choices. Five advisors analyze independently, five fresh reviewers critique anonymously, chairman produces final verdict + report artifacts.

Workflow: Gate → Frame → 5 parallel advisors → anonymized 5-reviewer peer review → chairman synthesis → paired HTML/MD reports.

Key Rules:

MUST ATTENTION use cheaper ladder first: /why-review → /plan-validate → /llm-council.
MUST ATTENTION graph-trace code/architecture questions when .code-graph/graph.db exists.
NEVER let earlier advisor responses bleed into later advisors; parallel spawn required.
ALWAYS mark verdict degraded if fewer than 5 usable advisor responses return.
ALWAYS sync edits to .agents/skills/llm-council/SKILL.md.

Phase 0: Council Gate

Run before advisors.

Gate	Required	Route if false
Multi-option	>=2 viable paths	Single-option rationale → `/why-review`
Hard to reverse	Architecture, stack, pricing, hiring, irreversible refactor	Reversible choice → answer directly
Real stakes	Wrong call costs >=1 week, money, trust, or strategic position	Low stakes → answer directly
Multi-angle value	Contrarian/first-principles/upside/outside/execution views change answer	Factual/single-domain → answer directly

If any gate fails, state failed gate + lighter route. NEVER council "should I use markdown."

Advisor Dimensions

Each advisor = thinking dimension, not persona costume. One strong angle each.

Advisor	Think
Contrarian	What fails? What assumption kills plan?
First Principles Thinker	What problem are we solving? Which assumptions need rebuild?
Expansionist	What upside, adjacent opportunity, undervalued path is missing?
Outsider	What confuses someone with no context? What jargon hides value?
Executor	What can happen Monday morning? Fastest validated path?

Tensions: Contrarian vs Expansionist, First Principles vs Executor, Outsider grounds both.

Step 1: Frame Question

When user says "council this", enrich then frame.

Context discovery budget: <=30 seconds; read 2-3 high-signal files.

Code/architecture gate: If question references existing code, services, files, or blast radius, run before framing:

python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <key-file> --direction both --json

Skip graph only when .code-graph/graph.db missing or question is non-code.

Step 2: Advisor Round

Spawn all 5 advisors simultaneously. Each gets identity, framed question, evidence rules, output constraints.

You are [Advisor Name] on an LLM Council.
Thinking style: [advisor dimension from table]

Question:
---
[framed question]
---

EVIDENCE RULES:
- Code/architecture claims require `file:line`, graph trace, or "I don't have enough evidence yet."
- If existing code context is needed, run:
  python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json
  python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json
- Cite trace output for blast radius, callers, downstream impact.
- Confidence: 95-100% full trace | 80-94% main paths | 60-79% partial | <60% do not recommend.
- Do NOT speculate. Name missing evidence instead.

Respond from assigned angle. Direct, specific, unbalanced by design. Other advisors cover other angles.
Length: 150-300 words plus one-line confidence declaration. No preamble.

Step 3: Peer Review Round

Collect responses. Randomize/anonymize as Response A-E. Spawn 5 fresh reviewers in parallel.

You are reviewing an LLM Council.

Question:
---
[framed question]
---

Anonymized responses:
**Response A:** [response]
**Response B:** [response]
**Response C:** [response]
**Response D:** [response]
**Response E:** [response]

Answer:
1. Strongest response? Why?
2. Biggest blind spot? What is missing?
3. What did all five miss?

Reference responses by letter. Be specific. Under 200 words.

Step 4: Chairman Synthesis

Chairman receives original question, framed question, de-anonymized advisor responses, peer reviews, anonymization map.

You are Chairman of an LLM Council. Synthesize 5 advisors + peer reviews into final verdict.

Question:
---
[framed question]
---

ADVISOR RESPONSES:
**Contrarian:** [response]
**First Principles Thinker:** [response]
**Expansionist:** [response]
**Outsider:** [response]
**Executor:** [response]

PEER REVIEWS:
[all peer reviews]

Produce exact structure:
## Where the Council Agrees
[Independent convergences; high-confidence signals.]
## Where the Council Clashes
[Genuine disagreements. Present both sides; explain why reasonable advisors disagree.]
## Blind Spots the Council Caught
[Only emerged through peer review.]
## The Recommendation
[Clear direct recommendation. Not "it depends."]
## The One Thing to Do First
[Single concrete next step.]

Be direct. Do not hedge. Give clarity unavailable from one perspective.

Step 5: Report Artifacts

Write both files; create plans/reports/ if missing.

plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html
plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.md

{YYMMDD-HHMM} = session datetime. {kebab-slug} = 3-6 word question descriptor. Both share prefix. NEVER write artifacts to workspace root or docs/.

Markdown transcript: original question, framed question, all advisor responses, all peer reviews, anonymization mapping, chairman synthesis.

Output Format

Council complete.

Report: plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html
Transcript: plans/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.md

Verdict: [1-2 sentence chairman recommendation]
First action: [single next step]

Workflow Integration

Opt-in escalation hook from host skills. NEVER wire into bugfix, refactor, migration, package-upgrade, or test-* workflows.

Host skill	Mode	Default	Gate
`architecture-design`	Always-offer after `## Next Steps`	Skip	User chooses
`tech-stack-research`	Always-offer after `## Next Steps`	Skip	User chooses
`why-review`	Conditional on active plan/PBI frontmatter	Escalate when gate fires	8-OR gate
`prioritize`	Conditional on ranking output	Escalate when gate fires	RICE top-2 within 15%, MoSCoW tie, or stakeholder disagreement

`why-review` Gate Schema

Gate fires when ANY field true. Absent fields default no-fire; gate opt-in via frontmatter, never opt-out.

Field	Convention	Fires when
`cross_service_impact`	`NONE` / `PARTIAL` / `FULL`	value != `NONE`
`breaking_changes`	bool	true
`complexity`	`low` / `medium` / `high` / `critical`	`high`, `critical`, or `story_points >= 13`
`new_framework`	bool	true
`irreversible`	bool	true
`security_critical`	bool	true
`performance_critical`	bool	true
`cost_high`	bool	true

Host prompt copy MUST cite cheaper rungs: /why-review, /plan-validate, /llm-council.

Closing Reminders

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"This decision feels important"	Gate it: multi-option, hard-to-reverse, real stakes, multi-angle value.
"One advisor can handle it"	Council value comes from independent angles + anonymous peer review.
"Sequential spawn is simpler"	Sequential spawn contaminates independence. Parallel spawn required.
"Four advisors is close enough"	Missing angle changes verdict quality. Mark degraded.
"Evidence would slow us down"	Unsupported code/architecture claims are speculation. Use graph/file proof or say insufficient evidence.

llm-council

LLM Council

Quick Summary

Phase 0: Council Gate

Advisor Dimensions

Step 1: Frame Question

Step 2: Advisor Round

Step 3: Peer Review Round

Step 4: Chairman Synthesis

Step 5: Report Artifacts

Output Format

Workflow Integration

why-review Gate Schema

Closing Reminders

LLM Council

Quick Summary

Phase 0: Council Gate

Advisor Dimensions

Step 1: Frame Question

Step 2: Advisor Round

Step 3: Peer Review Round

Step 4: Chairman Synthesis

Step 5: Report Artifacts

Output Format

Workflow Integration

why-review Gate Schema

Closing Reminders

`why-review` Gate Schema

`why-review` Gate Schema