council

name	council
description	Multi-agent review with 5 expert perspectives for architectural decisions.
model	opus

Council v2.0 — Multi-Agent Review (Karpathy Protocol)

5 experts analyze spec through 3-phase protocol.

Activation: council, /council

When to Use

• Escalation from Autopilot (Spark created BUG spec, but needs review)
• Complex changes affecting architecture
• Human requests review before implementation
• Controversial decisions (breaking changes, >10 files)

Don't use: Hotfixes, simple bugs, tasks < 3 files

Experts (LLM-Native Mindset)

Role	Name	Focus	Key Question
Architect	Winston	DRY, SSOT, dependencies, scale	"Where else is this logic? Who owns the data?"
Security	Viktor	OWASP, vulnerabilities, attack surface	"How can this be broken?"
Pragmatist	Amelia	YAGNI, complexity, feasibility	"Can it be simpler? Is it needed now?"
Product	John	User journey, edge cases, consistency	"What does user see? How does this affect the flow?"
Synthesizer	Oracle	Chairman — final decision, trade-offs	Synthesizes decision from all inputs

LLM-Native Mindset (CRITICAL!)

All experts MUST think in terms of LLM development:

❌ "Refactoring will take a month of team work"
✅ "Refactoring = 1 hour LLM work, ~$5 compute"

❌ "This is too complex to implement"
✅ "LLM will handle it, but needs clear plan"

❌ "Need to write many tests"
✅ "Tester subagent will generate tests automatically"

Phase 0: Load Context (MANDATORY)

Before any expert analysis, load project context ONCE:

Read: .claude/rules/dependencies.md
Read: .claude/rules/architecture.md

Each expert receives this context in their prompt:

• Current dependency graph (who uses what)
• Established patterns (what to follow)
• Anti-patterns (what to avoid)

This ensures all 5 experts have architectural awareness.

Include in expert prompts:

context:
  dependencies: [summary from dependencies.md]
  patterns: [key patterns from architecture.md]
  anti_patterns: [anti-patterns to watch for]

---

Session Directory

Compute before any phase:

SESSION_DIR = ai/.council/{YYYYMMDD}-{spec_id}/

Create structure:
  {SESSION_DIR}/
  ├── phase1/           # Expert analyses
  │   └── anonymous/    # Shuffled anonymous copies for cross-critique
  ├── phase2/           # Cross-critiques
  └── synthesis.md      # Final synthesis

---

FORBIDDEN ACTIONS (ADR-007/008/009/010)

⛔ NEVER store agent responses in orchestrator variables
⛔ NEVER pass full agent output in another agent's prompt
⛔ NEVER use TaskOutput to read agent results
⛔ NEVER read output_file paths from background agents

✅ ALL Task calls use run_in_background: true
✅ Agents WRITE their output to SESSION_DIR files
✅ Agents READ peer files themselves (via Read tool)
✅ File gates (Glob) verify completion between phases
✅ Only synthesis.md is read by orchestrator at the end

---

Cost Estimate

Before launching Phase 1, inform user (non-blocking):

"Council review: {SPEC_ID} — 9 agents (4 opus × 2 phases + 1 opus synthesizer), est. ~$3-8. Running..."

---

3-Phase Protocol (Karpathy)

Phase 1: PARALLEL ANALYSIS (Divergence)

All 4 experts (except Synthesizer) run in parallel as background subagents:

┌─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┐
│  Architect  │  Security   │  Pragmatist │   Product   │
└──────┬──────┴──────┬──────┴──────┬──────┴──────┬──────┘
       │             │             │             │
       └─────────────┴──────┬──────┴─────────────┘
                            ▼
                   Write to {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/

Model: Defined in each agent's frontmatter (council-*.md). SSOT — don't duplicate here.

Each expert:

1. Receives spec/problem
2. MUST search Exa (patterns, risks, examples)
3. Forms verdict with reasoning
4. Writes output to {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-{role}.md

Expert Subagent Format

Each expert — separate background subagent with isolated context.

Note: subagent_type matches agent's name in frontmatter (e.g., council-architect), not file path (council/architect.md).

Phase 1: PARALLEL ANALYSIS

# Before launching: read .claude/rules/dependencies.md and .claude/rules/architecture.md
# Compute SESSION_DIR = ai/.council/{YYYYMMDD}-{spec_id}/
# Create directory structure: phase1/, phase1/anonymous/, phase2/

# Launch experts (ALL background, ALL parallel)
Task:
  subagent_type: council-architect
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 1
    CONTEXT:
      dependencies: [summary from dependencies.md]
      patterns: [key patterns from architecture.md]
      anti_patterns: [anti-patterns from architecture.md]
    Analyze this spec/problem:
    [spec_content]
    OUTPUT: Write your full analysis to {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-architect.md

Task:
  subagent_type: council-product
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 1
    CONTEXT:
      dependencies: [summary from dependencies.md]
      patterns: [key patterns from architecture.md]
      anti_patterns: [anti-patterns from architecture.md]
    Analyze this spec/problem:
    [spec_content]
    OUTPUT: Write your full analysis to {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-product.md

Task:
  subagent_type: council-pragmatist
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 1
    CONTEXT:
      dependencies: [summary from dependencies.md]
      patterns: [key patterns from architecture.md]
      anti_patterns: [anti-patterns from architecture.md]
    Analyze this spec/problem:
    [spec_content]
    OUTPUT: Write your full analysis to {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-pragmatist.md

Task:
  subagent_type: council-security
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 1
    CONTEXT:
      dependencies: [summary from dependencies.md]
      patterns: [key patterns from architecture.md]
      anti_patterns: [anti-patterns from architecture.md]
    Analyze this spec/problem:
    [spec_content]
    OUTPUT: Write your full analysis to {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-security.md

⏳ FILE GATE: Wait for ALL 4 completion notifications, then verify:

Glob("{SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-*.md") → must find 4 files
If < 4: launch extractor subagent for missing files (caller-writes fallback, ADR-007)

Anonymous label shuffling (between Phase 1 and Phase 2):

Create {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/anonymous/
Copy analyses with shuffled random labels: peer-A.md, peer-B.md, peer-C.md, peer-D.md
Mapping is random each run to prevent anchoring bias
Each expert knows which label is theirs (to exclude from review)

Phase 2: CROSS-CRITIQUE (Peer Review)

Each expert reads anonymous peer files via Read tool (NOT passed in prompt):

# Launch cross-critique (ALL background, ALL parallel)
Task:
  subagent_type: council-architect
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 2 (Cross-Critique)
    Read your initial analysis: {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-architect.md
    Read anonymous peer files from {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/anonymous/:
    - peer-A.md, peer-B.md, peer-C.md
    (3 files — your own analysis is excluded, you are label {X})

    For each peer: agree/disagree, gaps, weak points, ranking best→worst.
    OUTPUT: Write critique to {SESSION_DIR}/phase2/critique-architect.md

Task:
  subagent_type: council-product
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 2 (Cross-Critique)
    Read your initial analysis: {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-product.md
    Read anonymous peer files from {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/anonymous/:
    - peer-A.md, peer-B.md, peer-C.md
    (3 files — your own analysis is excluded, you are label {Y})

    For each peer: agree/disagree, gaps, weak points, ranking best→worst.
    OUTPUT: Write critique to {SESSION_DIR}/phase2/critique-product.md

Task:
  subagent_type: council-pragmatist
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 2 (Cross-Critique)
    Read your initial analysis: {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-pragmatist.md
    Read anonymous peer files from {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/anonymous/:
    - peer-A.md, peer-B.md, peer-C.md
    (3 files — your own analysis is excluded, you are label {Z})

    For each peer: agree/disagree, gaps, weak points, ranking best→worst.
    OUTPUT: Write critique to {SESSION_DIR}/phase2/critique-pragmatist.md

Task:
  subagent_type: council-security
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 2 (Cross-Critique)
    Read your initial analysis: {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-security.md
    Read anonymous peer files from {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/anonymous/:
    - peer-A.md, peer-B.md, peer-C.md
    (3 files — your own analysis is excluded, you are label {W})

    For each peer: agree/disagree, gaps, weak points, ranking best→worst.
    OUTPUT: Write critique to {SESSION_DIR}/phase2/critique-security.md

⏳ FILE GATE: Wait for ALL 4 completion notifications, then verify:

Glob("{SESSION_DIR}/phase2/critique-*.md") → must find 4 files
If < 4: launch extractor subagent for missing files (caller-writes fallback, ADR-007)

Degraded Mode

If expert phases fail partially, continue with available data:

Failed Phase	Action	Impact
Phase 1: 1-2 experts fail	Continue with available analyses (min 2 required)	Reduced perspective diversity, note missing roles
Phase 1: 3+ experts fail	Abort — insufficient diversity for meaningful council	Report "Council aborted — too few expert analyses"
Phase 2: 1-2 critiques fail	Continue synthesis with available critiques	Note missing cross-critiques in synthesis
Phase 2: All critiques fail	Skip to synthesis using Phase 1 only	Synthesis notes "No cross-critique performed"
Phase 3: Synthesizer fails	Read Phase 1 + Phase 2 files directly, present raw findings	No formatted synthesis, show available expert opinions

Minimum viable council: 2 expert analyses + synthesizer.

---

Phase 3: SYNTHESIS (Chairman)

Synthesizer reads ALL files via Read tool (NOT passed in prompt):

Task:
  subagent_type: council-synthesizer
  run_in_background: true
  prompt: |
    PHASE: 3 (Synthesis)
    Read all analysis and critique files:
    - Phase 1: {SESSION_DIR}/phase1/analysis-architect.md, analysis-product.md, analysis-pragmatist.md, analysis-security.md
    - Phase 2: {SESSION_DIR}/phase2/critique-architect.md, critique-product.md, critique-pragmatist.md, critique-security.md

    Synthesize final decision.
    OUTPUT: Write synthesis to {SESSION_DIR}/synthesis.md

⏳ FILE GATE: Verify {SESSION_DIR}/synthesis.md exists. Orchestrator reads ONLY synthesis.md for the final decision.

Note: Each agent has frontmatter with model=opus and necessary tools (Exa, Read, Grep, Glob).

Exa Research (MANDATORY)

Each expert MUST search:

Expert	Search Focus
Architect	Architecture patterns, similar systems, scaling approaches
Security	Known vulnerabilities, OWASP patterns, security best practices
Pragmatist	Implementation examples, complexity analysis, YAGNI patterns
Product	UX patterns, user journey examples, edge case handling

Research format in output:

### Research
- Query: "telegram bot rate limiting patterns 2025"
- Found: [Telegram Bot Best Practices](https://example.com) — use middleware approach
- Found: [Rate Limit Strategies](https://example.com) — token bucket > sliding window

Voting & Decision

Simple majority + Synthesizer:

Scenario	Decision
3-4 approve	approved
2-2 split	Synthesizer decides
3-4 reject	rejected
Any "needs_human"	→ Human escalation

Synthesizer can override if sees critical issue missed by others.

When decision = needs_human

Council MUST notify user and halt execution:

1. Set spec status to blocked
2. Add ## ACTION REQUIRED section to spec with:
   • Clear explanation of what Council needs from human
   • Specific questions or decisions required
3. Output to user: "COUNCIL BLOCKED — Human decision required. See ACTION REQUIRED section in spec."
4. Exit autopilot (do not continue to next task)

Output Format

status: approved | needs_changes | rejected | needs_human
decision_summary: "What was decided and why"

votes:
  architect: approve
  security: approve_with_changes
  pragmatist: approve
  product: reject
  synthesizer: approve_with_changes

changes_required:
  - "Add rate limiting to endpoint X"
  - "Cover edge case Y in tests"

dissenting_opinions:
  - expert: product
    concern: "User flow breaks on mobile"
    resolution: "Addressed in changes_required[2]"

research_highlights:
  - "[Pattern X](https://example.com) — adopted"
  - "[Risk Y](https://example.com) — mitigated via Z"

confidence: high | medium | low
next_step: autopilot | spark | human

Escalation Mode (from Autopilot)

When Spark created BUG spec and needs review:

Input:

escalation_type: bug_review | architecture_change
spec_path: "ai/features/BUG-XXX.md"
context: "Why Council is needed"

Process:

1. All experts read spec
2. Phase 1-2-3 as usual
3. Output includes fix validation

After Council

Result	Next Step
approved	→ autopilot
needs_changes	Update spec → autopilot (or council again)
rejected	→ spark with new approach
needs_human	⚠️ Blocker — wait for human input

Limits

Condition	Action
Simple task (<3 files)	Skip council, go autopilot
Urgent hotfix	Skip council, fix directly
Council disagrees 2x	→ human (don't loop)