Llm Council

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

> Codex compatibility note:
> - Invoke repository skills with `$skill-name` in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude `/skill-name` references.
> - Host-native execution: Codex runs a skill by loading its `SKILL.md` instructions and executing the required steps with available tools. No separate `Skill` tool is required; a loaded skill is already activated.
> - Source vs execution: prefer the registered `.agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.md` for Codex execution. `.claude/**` remains the canonical authoring source; reading it for a registry or source inspection does not switch this session to Claude Code.
> - Capability check: interpret Claude tool names through the active host before declaring a blocker. Continue when Codex can perform the required operation; stop and ask only when the actual capability is unavailable, naming the step and evidence. Host-native execution is not a protocol deviation and needs no extra approval.
> - Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
> - Use ask user tool to ask user.
> - Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
> - Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
> - Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required `spawn_agent` subagent(s) for that task.
> - Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
> - For workflow skills, steps follow the guided contract in `$start-workflow` (gate steps fixed; other steps may flex with a logged reason); report step-by-step evidence.
> - If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.
> **[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` (an optional graph trace is only a hint), 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 --mode=validate` → `$llm-council`.
- Optional: for a high-risk code/architecture blast radius, a graph trace (when `.code-graph/graph.db` exists) can add hints; it may be stale — verify by reading.
- NEVER let earlier advisor responses bleed into later advisors; parallel spawn required.
- ALWAYS mark verdict degraded if fewer than 5 usable advisor responses return.
- ALWAYS regenerate mirrors with `$sync-codex` after editing this skill — NEVER hand-edit `.agents/` or `.codex/` (they are generated artifacts).

---

## 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; `tmp/reports/council-*`; domain data (pricing -> revenue, architecture -> service map, tech stack -> dependencies).

**Code/architecture evidence:** If question references existing code, services, files, or blast radius, read the files (grep/read) before framing; optionally a graph trace can add hints:

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

Skip the graph when `.code-graph/graph.db` is missing, the question is non-code, or the blast radius is low-risk.

**Framed question includes:** core decision, user context, workspace evidence, stakes, constraints, known unknowns. Keep the framing neutral and opinion-free. 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.

```text
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 output is only a hint), or "I don't have enough evidence yet."
- If existing code context is needed, read the files; optionally (stale-able hints):
  python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json
  python .claude/scripts/code_graph connections <file> --json
- Cite file evidence for blast radius, callers, downstream impact; label graph output as a hint.
- 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.

```text
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.

```text
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 `tmp/reports/` if missing.

```text
tmp/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html
tmp/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

```text
Council complete.

Report: tmp/reports/council-{YYMMDD-HHMM}-{kebab-slug}.html
Transcript: tmp/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 `workflow-bugfix`, `workflow-refactor`, or `test-*` workflows. Blacklist is enforced at the `why-review` gate (Step A — workflow context check) before the 8-OR frontmatter gate evaluates.

| Host skill                       | Mode                                       | Default                  | Gate                                                             |
| -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `architecture --mode=design`            | Always-offer after `## Next Steps`         | Skip                     | User chooses                                                     |
| `tech-stack-research`            | Always-offer after `## Next Steps`         | Skip                     | User chooses                                                     |
| `domain-analysis`                | Always-offer after `## Next Steps`         | Skip                     | User chooses                                                     |
| `why-review`                     | Conditional on active plan/PBI frontmatter | Escalate when gate fires | Step A workflow blacklist suppression THEN 8-OR frontmatter 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 --mode=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 output is only a hint), 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 `tmp/reports/` and open HTML.
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** after editing this skill, run `$sync-codex` to regenerate mirrors — NEVER hand-edit `.agents/` or `.codex/` (generated).

**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 file proof or say insufficient evidence. |