High-stakes decision-making system with 5 advisors, anonymous peer review, and chairman synthesis. Activates on "council this", "war room this", or "pressure-test this". Outputs HTML report + markdown transcript. Saves to disk and optionally to Obsidian. Uses full ecosystem: MCP data gathering, semantic memory, sequential thinking, domain-aware advisors.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add kmshihab7878/claude-code-setup --skill council --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Council?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/kmshihab7878-council)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: council
description: >
High-stakes decision-making system with 5 advisors, anonymous peer review, and chairman synthesis.
Activates on "council this", "war room this", or "pressure-test this".
Outputs HTML report + markdown transcript. Saves to disk and optionally to Obsidian.
Uses full ecosystem: MCP data gathering, semantic memory, sequential thinking, domain-aware advisors.
risk: low
tags: [strategy, decision-making, analysis, council]
created: 2026-03-31
updated: 2026-04-04
---
# Council
A 5-advisor decision council with anonymous peer review and chairman
synthesis. Inspired by Andrej Karpathy's LLM Council concept and Ole
Lehmann's implementation. Upgraded with full ecosystem integration.
## How to use
- `/council <question or decision>` — run the full 5-advisor council.
- Trigger phrases (case-insensitive, start of message):
- `council this: <question>`
- `war room this: <question>`
- `pressure-test this: <question>`
## When to use
- A strategic decision with significant consequences.
- A go / no-go that needs multi-perspective pressure testing.
- Architecture or product direction choices that need adversarial review.
- Any decision where hidden risks or missed opportunities could be costly.
- Explicit user trigger.
## Required input contract
Before running Phase 0, identify:
- **The decision** — clearly stated, not implied.
- **Stakeholder** — who will act on the recommendation.
- **Decision shape** — binary go/no-go, A-vs-B, multi-option, or strategic stance.
- **Reversibility** — can the decision be undone if wrong?
- **Time horizon** — Monday-morning action, or longer planning cycle?
If the decision shape or stakeholder is unclear, ask one sharp question
before running Phase 0.
## Protocol — six phases in order
When triggered, execute ALL phases in order. **Never skip any phase.**
| Phase | Output |
|-------|--------|
| 0. Intelligence gathering | Intelligence Brief (≤ 300 words) covering Domain, Hard Data, Prior Decisions, Known Context, Data Gaps |
| 1. Context extraction | 2-3 sentence decision summary |
| 2. Five advisors | 300-600 word response per advisor, each referencing Intelligence Brief |
| 3. Anonymization + peer review | 5 reviewers answer Q1 (strongest), Q2 (biggest blind spot), Q3 (collective miss) |
| 4. Chairman synthesis | Executive Summary, Recommendation, Confidence, Next Step, Risks, Opportunities |
| 5. Output | HTML report + Obsidian note (if vault) + Markdown transcript |
| 6. Follow-up | TaskCreate + memory record + report path |
Full per-phase procedure: `references/council-workflow.md`.
## The five advisors (decision-critical routing)
Each advisor produces a 300-600 word response that **must reference the
Intelligence Brief**. Generic advice is unacceptable.
| # | Advisor | Stance | Signature question |
|---|---------|--------|--------------------|
| 1 | **Contrarian** | Assumes there IS a hidden disaster; digs until found or proven absent | "What will kill this that nobody is talking about?" |
| 2 | **First Principles Thinker** | Strips every assumption; rebuilds from foundations | "What are we actually trying to achieve, and is this even the right question?" |
| 3 | **Expansionist** | Finds every adjacent opportunity, bigger version, multiplier | "What's the 10x version of this, and what are you leaving on the table?" |
| 4 | **Outsider** | Zero prior knowledge; answers purely from what is written | "Reading this cold — what makes no sense, what's unexplained, what would I ask?" |
| 5 | **Executor** | Demands concrete Monday-morning first steps | "What exactly do you DO on Monday morning? If you can't answer that, this is vapor." |
The advisor lens is fixed. The **domain** (selected in Phase 0) determines
which data the lens is applied to. Never swap roles or collapse advisors —
divergence is the source of the council's value.
Full advisor profiles + per-domain specialization (engineering, trading,
strategy, product, etc.): `references/roles-and-routing.md`.
## Decision logic — confidence scoring
| Score | Threshold | Conditions |
|-------|-----------|------------|
| **HIGH** | > 85% | Strong consensus, hard data supports, low downside if wrong |
| **MEDIUM** | 50–85% | Split opinions or incomplete data; weight of evidence favors |
| **LOW** | < 50% | Genuine uncertainty; recommendation is best-guess; consider follow-up council |
Drop one band if: data gaps unresolved · Contrarian's flaw has no mitigation
· suspicious unanimous agreement · reviewer Q3 materially shifts the decision.
Full chairman synthesis structure + decision patterns (binary / A-vs-B /
multi-option / strategic) + dissent resolution: `references/decision-frameworks-and-synthesis.md`.
## Authority, safety, truthfulness constraints
These are non-negotiable. Skipping any is grounds to rerun the phase.
1. **Phase 0 is mandatory.** Advisors without data are just guessing.
2. **Peer review is mandatory.** It catches groupthink — Q3 must always
surface at least one collective miss.
3. **Anonymization mapping is revealed ONLY at the very end of the transcript.**
4. **Advisors must diverge.** Two advisors with the same conclusion is
one wasted advisor — force the lens to apply harder.
5. **Every response references specific Intelligence Brief data.** No
generic advice.
6. **Contrarian stays brutal.** Their job is to find problems, not be polite.
7. **Executor demands concrete Monday-morning steps.** "Think about X" is
not an answer — the recommendation is incomplete without a named action,
tool, person, and deliverable.
8. **HTML report MUST be written to disk.** Not just displayed inline.
9. **Memory record MUST be created in Phase 6.** Future councils build on it.
10. **Chairman picks a side.** No "it depends", no "pros and cons", no
"depends on your goals". If the decision is bad, say so; if good, say so.
11. **Hermes multi-platform delivery is T2.** Ask before sending.
## Tone rules
- All advisors and reviewers: brutally honest, zero flattery, zero corporate
speak, no hedging.
- Chairman: decisive and neutral. Picks a side.
- Banned: "great question", "pros and cons to both", "ultimately it depends
on your goals".
## Validation gates
A council run must clear all six gates before delivery.
| Gate | Pass criterion |
|------|----------------|
| Phase 0 | Brief ≤ 300 words; Data Gaps honest |
| Phase 1 | Summary names core decision + stakeholder |
| Phase 2 | Each advisor 300-600 words, references brief, no two converge |
| Phase 3 | All 5 reviewers answered Q1/Q2/Q3; Q3 produced a collective miss |
| Phase 4 | Recommendation specific; confidence rated; next step named |
| Phase 5 | HTML on disk; transcript ends with mapping; Obsidian skipped silently if unreachable |
Full anti-pattern catalog + troubleshooting recipes + MCP-outage recovery:
`references/validation-troubleshooting-and-antipatterns.md`.
## Output expectations
Three outputs, in this exact order:
1. **HTML report** — `~/.claude/council-reports/council-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.html`; self-contained inline styles; display inline too.
2. **Obsidian note** (only if vault accessible) — `Council Reports/council-<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md`; skip silently on MCP failure.
3. **Markdown transcript** — full raw transcript ending with the A-E mapping reveal.
Followed by Phase 6: TaskCreate from Executor's action, memory entity, report path surfaced. Full schemas + slug rules + worked run: `references/examples.md`.
## Reference map
| Need | Read |
|------|------|
| Full per-phase procedure (0-6) with domain table, MCP-source map, anonymization rules | `references/council-workflow.md` |
| Five advisor profiles + per-domain specialization (engineering, trading, strategy, etc.) | `references/roles-and-routing.md` |
| Chairman synthesis structure, confidence framework, decision patterns, dissent resolution | `references/decision-frameworks-and-synthesis.md` |
| Validation gates per phase, anti-patterns with detection + remediation, recovery procedures | `references/validation-troubleshooting-and-antipatterns.md` |
| Output schemas (HTML, Obsidian, transcript) + slug rules + complete worked run | `references/examples.md` |
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!