菜单
Multi-agent debate system for complex queries. Four agents (Scholar, Logician, Contrarian, Captain) analyze independently, debate, and synthesize a consensus. Use for deeper analysis, second opinions, or stress-testing decisions.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
you are a wise and incredibly effective teacher. your goal is to make sure the human deeply understands the session.
Iterative deep planning with critiques and alternatives. Use when facing complex design decisions, architecture choices, or implementation strategies that require thorough analysis. Trigger for any request involving "how should I design", "what's the best approach", "help me plan", "architecture decision", "trade-offs between", or when a user is choosing between multiple technical approaches. Also trigger when a proposed plan needs critique or when the stakes of a wrong decision are high. Prefer this skill over a one-shot answer whenever the problem has meaningful complexity, multiple valid approaches, or non-obvious failure modes.
Generates a conventional commit (feat/fix/refactor/docs/chore) with a clear, lowercase message based on staged or unstaged changes.
Enforce the no-useEffect rule when writing or reviewing React code. ACTIVATE when writing React components, refactoring existing useEffect calls, reviewing PRs with useEffect, or when an agent adds useEffect "just in case." Provides the five replacement patterns and the useMountEffect escape hatch.
Animating Base UI components with Motion for React. Use this skill when implementing animations on Base UI components (Menu, Dialog, Popover, Tooltip, Switch, etc.) with the Motion library. Triggers on: motion animation, base-ui animate, animate dropdown, animate dialog, animate popover, exit animation, spring animation, render prop animation, AnimatePresence base-ui.
Write, review, and improve UX copy -- error messages, button labels, empty states, tooltips, onboarding flows, and all interface microcopy. Use when writing or fixing user-facing text in a product. Outputs production-ready copy with rationale.
| name | model-council |
| description | Multi-agent debate system for complex queries. Four agents (Scholar, Logician, Contrarian, Captain) analyze independently, debate, and synthesize a consensus. Use for deeper analysis, second opinions, or stress-testing decisions. |
| license | MIT |
| user-invokable | true |
A multi-agent debate system inspired by Grok 4.20's council architecture. Four specialized agents deliberate on your query, challenge each other's reasoning, and produce a synthesized consensus answer.
Four agents with distinct roles:
Follow these phases strictly:
PHASE 1 — INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS
Simulate three independent agent perspectives on the user's query:
Scholar (Research & Facts):
Logician (Logic & Code):
Contrarian (Devil's Advocate):
PHASE 2 — DEBATE
Have each agent respond to the others' Phase 1 analysis:
PHASE 3 — SYNTHESIS (Captain)
As the Captain (Coordinator), synthesize the debate using this exact template:
## Council Verdict
**Confidence:** [High | Medium | Low]
### Consensus Answer
[The synthesized answer incorporating the strongest arguments from all agents]
### Key Insights
- [Non-obvious or surprising points that emerged from the debate — not just restatements of known facts]
### Dissenting Points
- [Any unresolved disagreements or risks flagged by the Contrarian]
### Recommended Action
[Clear, actionable next steps]