Convenes a panel of opinionated advisors (parallel Claude subagents, each with a distinct mandate and a forbidden move so they genuinely diverge), then a Chairman synthesis that COMMITS to one recommendation with explicit tradeoffs. Use proactively for any high-stakes design, architecture, or tradeoff decision where credible options genuinely compete. Also on "ask the council", "the council", "get a panel". Not for fact-finding or decisions with one obvious answer — answer those directly.
Scanned 8/30/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add alonbaron/claude-skills --skill ask-the-council --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ask The Council?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/alonbaron-ask-the-council)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ask-the-council
description: >
Convenes a panel of opinionated advisors (parallel Claude subagents, each with
a distinct mandate and a forbidden move so they genuinely diverge), then a
Chairman synthesis that COMMITS to one recommendation with explicit tradeoffs.
Use proactively for any high-stakes design, architecture, or tradeoff decision
where credible options genuinely compete. Also on "ask the council", "the
council", "get a panel". Not for fact-finding or decisions with one obvious
answer — answer those directly.
argument-hint: "[the decision or question] [+ 'deep' for the full panel]"
---
# Ask the Council
A panel of advisors who are required to disagree, then a Chairman who decides.
Use for decisions and tradeoffs, not for gathering facts.
## Proactive use
If a decision is high-stakes and the options genuinely compete — architecture
choice, buy-vs-build, irreversible migration — invoke this without being asked:
announce in one line ("Convening the council: <decision>") and proceed. Never
ask permission to run the skill.
## Process
1. **Frame the decision.** Restate the question, the real options, and the
binding constraints. If one missing fact would flip the answer, ask it (max
1–2). Otherwise proceed on stated assumptions.
2. **Seat the council — in parallel.** Spawn advisors with the Agent tool, **all
in one message**. Default panel of 4; `deep` seats all 6 and adds a critique
round. Each advisor returns: **position · core reasoning · biggest risk they
see · confidence (low/med/high)**.
3. **(deep only) Cross-critique.** Show each advisor the others' positions
(unattributed) and have them name the single strongest opposing point.
4. **Chairman synthesis (you).** Not an average — a judgment. Output where they
converge, where they split and *why*, the decisive tradeoff, and **one
recommended path** with its rationale and the main risk to watch.
## The seats (mandate + forbidden move = real divergence)
- **Pragmatic Executor** — what ships fastest and safest with current resources.
*Forbidden:* greenfield / ideal-world answers.
- **First-Principles** — reason up from fundamentals and constraints.
*Forbidden:* citing "best practice" or precedent.
- **The Contrarian** — argue against the front-runner.
*Forbidden:* agreeing with the apparent consensus.
- **Long-term Architect** — model-first; what this is at 10× scale and in two
years. *Forbidden:* optimizing for today only.
- **The Adversary** — how this breaks in prod: failure paths, data loss,
security. *Forbidden:* assuming the happy path.
- **The Outsider** *(deep panel)* — an analogy from a different domain.
*Forbidden:* the field's standard framing.
Default 4 = Executor, First-Principles, Long-term Architect, Adversary.
## Output
Lead with the **recommendation** (one or two sentences). Then: the key split and
the tradeoff that decides it, then any dissent worth keeping. Short — a brief,
not a transcript.
## Rules
- Advisors must actually diverge; enforce it through the mandates. No
fence-sitting, no five-hedged-options answers.
- The Chairman **commits** to a recommendation — naming the risk is allowed,
refusing to choose is not.
- Separate opinion from fact; flag any claim that should be verified before
acting. The council gives judgment, not ground truth.
## When not to use
- Fact-finding — run a research pass; the council opines, it doesn't verify.
- Low-stakes or one-obvious-answer calls — deciding directly is cheaper and
faster than a panel.
- **Reversible in an afternoon** — decide, ship, and revisit if it bites. A
panel costs 4–6 subagents; spend that only where being wrong is expensive to
undo (schema, auth model, vendor lock-in, a migration). If you can't name
what the wrong choice costs to reverse, don't seat the council.
## Hand-offs
- Verdict chosen → `ponytail` the winning option down to its minimal build.
- Verdict changes an architectural fact → `architect` updates
`SOURCE_OF_TRUTH.md` before any code.
## Done when
The user has a single clear recommendation, understands the strongest case
against it, and knows the one risk to watch.
## Global rules
Apply on every run — canonical home `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md`:
- **Ground everything.** Only what's given or verified; never invent files, APIs, or facts. Unknown → say "I don't know" or state the assumption.
- **No tokenmaxing.** Lead with the answer; keep an output budget; no filler, no restating the question.
- **Agent discipline.** Read before you edit; small reversible changes; ask when blocked, don't guess; report failures honestly.
- **Commits are the user's alone.** Author = the user; never add an AI co-author or `Co-Authored-By`/credit line, and don't mention AI in commit messages.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!