---
title: "skill by agenticluke · skilld"
canonical_url: "https://skilld.dev/gh/agenticluke/decision-council-plus"
meta:
  description: "Call a four-voice council for unclear choices, tradeoffs, and go or no-go calls. Use when several sound paths exist and the user needs clear, fair… From agenticluke/decision-council-plus."
  "og:description": "Call a four-voice council for unclear choices, tradeoffs, and go or no-go calls. Use when several sound paths exist and the user needs clear, fair… From agenticluke/decision-council-plus."
  "og:title": "skill by agenticluke"
  "twitter:description": "Call a four-voice council for unclear choices, tradeoffs, and go or no-go calls. Use when several sound paths exist and the user needs clear, fair… From agenticluke/decision-council-plus."
  "twitter:title": "skill by agenticluke"
---

`

[All skills](https://skilld.dev/skills)

[![agenticluke avatar](https://skilld.dev/_img/avatar?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fagenticluke.png%3Fsize%3D96)](https://skilld.dev/gh/agenticluke)

# **/skill**

[@138b8b1](https://github.com/agenticluke/decision-council-plus/commit/138b8b1539bccae5edeb4d60d361e1b55c769657 "Your agent reads SKILL.md at commit 138b8b1")

by [agenticluke](https://skilld.dev/gh/agenticluke)· [agenticluke](https://skilld.dev/gh/agenticluke)/ [decision-council-plus](https://skilld.dev/gh/agenticluke/decision-council-plus)

Call a four-voice council for unclear choices, tradeoffs, and go or no-go calls. Use when several sound paths exist and the user needs clear, fair disagreement before choosing.

- 1 file
- 8.5 KB
- Updated 4 weeks ago
- [GitHub](https://github.com/agenticluke/decision-council-plus/blob/main/skill/SKILL.md "View SKILL.md on GitHub")

## SKILL.md

8.5 KB

**≈46** tokens always: the name and description. **≈2.1k** when used: this file.

## Council

Use four voices to test a hard choice:

- Architect: long-term quality and upkeep
- Skeptic: weak claims and simpler paths
- Pragmatist: speed and real-world needs
- Critic: risks, edge cases, and failure

Use this skill to make a choice under doubt. Do not use it for code review, task plans, or system design.

### When to Use It

Use the council when:

- Two or more sound choices exist.
- No choice is a clear winner.
- The user asks for several views or a dissenting view.
- A go or no-go call needs a hard test.
- The current chat may bias the answer.
- The costs, risks, or gains need to be made clear.

Common cases:

- Monorepo or many repos
- Ship now or wait
- Feature flag or full launch
- Cut scope or keep the wider plan

### When Not to Use It

| Need | Action |
| --- | --- |
| Check if work is correct | Use `santa-method` |
| Turn a feature into steps | Use `planner` |
| Design a system | Use `architect` |
| Review code or find security bugs | Use `code-reviewer` or `santa-method` |
| Answer a fact question | Answer it |
| Do a clear task | Do the task |
| Find missing facts | Gather the facts first |
| Make an urgent safety call | Choose the safe path and state why |

Do not use the council to delay a clear choice.

### Rules

- Use one clear question.
- Give each voice the same facts.
- Give each outside voice only the facts it needs.
- Do not send the full chat unless a key fact cannot be split out.
- Keep each view short and firm.
- Show real dissent. Do not force a false deal.
- Do not let the loudest voice win by default.
- Do not let the council take an action. It only gives advice.
- Ask the user before any hard-to-undo act.
- If facts are missing, say what is missing. Do not make them up.

### Steps

#### 1. State the Choice

Turn the issue into one question.

Include:

- What must be chosen
- The real choices
- Key limits
- What success means
- When the choice must be made

If the answer would change based on one missing fact, ask one clear question first. If not, state a safe guess and continue.

#### 2. Gather Only Key Facts

For a codebase choice, collect only the files, code, issue text, test results, or data needed for the call.

For a broad choice, skip repo details that will not change the answer.

Mark each claim as one of these:

- Fact
- Guess
- User goal
- Hard limit

If key facts clash, show the clash before calling the council.

#### 3. Write the Architect View First

Before reading the other views, write:

- The first choice
- The three best reasons for it
- Its largest risk
- What fact would change the choice

This keeps the final answer from copying the last voice heard.

#### 4. Start Three Fresh Voices

Run the Skeptic, Pragmatist, and Critic at the same time when tools allow it.

Each voice gets:

- The choice question
- The same key facts
- Its role
- No extra chat history

Use this prompt:

```
You are the [ROLE] on a four-voice decision council.

Question:
[one clear choice question]

Facts and limits:
[only the facts needed for this choice]

Reply with:
1. Choice: Pick one path in 1 or 2 sentences.
2. Reasons: Give 3 short bullets.
3. Main risk: Name the biggest risk in your path.
4. Missed point: Name one thing the other voices may miss.
5. Change trigger: Name one fact that would change your choice.

Be direct. Do not hide behind "it depends." If a fact is missing,
name it. Use fewer than 250 words.
```

Role notes:

- Skeptic: Test the way the question is framed. Break weak claims. Offer the simplest sound path.
- Pragmatist: Favor speed, low cost, clear use, and work that can ship.
- Critic: Find harm, edge cases, lock-in, rollback trouble, and ways the plan can fail.

If fresh voices cannot be started, write the three views one at a time. Keep each role separate. State that the views were not independent.

#### 5. Compare the Views

Use these checks:

- Do not reject a view without a reason.
- Keep the strongest point against the final choice.
- If two outside voices reject the first choice, treat that as a strong sign.
- If a voice changes the first choice, say so.
- If all voices agree too fast, test the best other path once.
- If the vote is tied, use the user's goals and hard limits as the tie break.
- If risk is high and proof is weak, favor a small test or a path that can be undone.
- If no safe choice can be made, stop and name the missing fact or needed owner.

A vote is not the final answer. The reasons matter more than the count.

#### 6. Give a Short Verdict

Use this form:

```
## Council: [short title]

**Architect:** [choice]
[main reason]

**Skeptic:** [choice]
[main reason]

**Pragmatist:** [choice]
[main reason]

**Critic:** [choice]
[main reason]

### Verdict

- **Shared view:** [where the voices agree]
- **Strongest dissent:** [best case against the choice]
- **Premise check:** [did the Skeptic reject the question or its claims?]
- **Recommendation:** [one clear path]
- **Next step:** [one small action]
- **Recheck if:** [fact or event that should reopen the choice]
```

Keep it easy to scan on a phone.

### Edge Cases

- If the user names only one path, ask for the other path or test "do it" against "do not do it."
- If one choice breaks a hard limit, remove it before the council.
- If the choice affects safety, law, health, money, or private data, state that risk and use checked facts.
- If the choice is hard to undo, include a rollback plan or a small trial.
- If the user has already chosen, use the council to test that choice. Do not pretend the choice is still open.
- If new facts arrive after the verdict, run a new round only if they could change the call.
- If the voices agree but for different reasons, show those reasons.
- If there is no good path, choose the least harmful path and state the cost.

### Saving the Result

Do not write quick notes to `~/.claude/notes` or other hidden paths.

Save the result only when it changes real work:

- Use `knowledge-ops` for a lasting lesson.
- Use `/save-session` for a session note.
- Update the right GitHub or Linear issue when the choice changes active work.

Do not save small or short-lived choices.

### More Rounds

Use one round by default.

Run another round only when the user asks, or when a new key fact could change the result.

For a new round:

- Ask a smaller question.
- Share the old verdict only when needed.
- Keep the Skeptic as fresh as possible.
- Do not repeat points that have already been settled.

### Bad Patterns

Do not:

- Use the council for code review.
- Use it for plain build work.
- Send the full chat to each voice.
- Hide dissent in the verdict.
- Turn every choice into a saved note.
- Treat a vote as proof.
- Make up facts to break a tie.
- run more rounds with no new question or fact.

### Related Skills

- `santa-method`: Test whether work is sound.
- `knowledge-ops`: Save a lasting change in what the team knows.
- `search-first`: Gather needed source facts before the council.
- `architecture-decision-records`: Record a long-term system choice.

### Example

Question:

```
Should we ship ECC 2.0 as an alpha this week, or wait one month
for a better control panel?

Facts:
- The core work passes its tests.
- The control panel lacks clear error text.
- Ten skilled users asked for early access.
- Support can help five users per week.
- The alpha can be turned off in one hour.
- Success means learning from real use without hurting trust.
```

Possible council:

```
## Council: Ship ECC 2.0 Alpha

**Architect:** Ship a small alpha now.
The core is sound, and a limited group will show what the panel truly needs.

**Skeptic:** Ship now, but question whether the panel is the real gate.
The weak error text may be fixed faster than a one-month wait.

**Pragmatist:** Ship to five users this week.
This fits the support limit and gives useful feedback soon.

**Critic:** Do not open it to all ten users at once.
Poor error text may cause support load and loss of trust.

### Verdict

- **Shared view:** A small alpha is safer than a full launch or a long wait.
- **Strongest dissent:** Bad error text may confuse users and raise support work.
- **Premise check:** The panel may not need to be complete before a small alpha.
- **Recommendation:** Fix the worst error text, then invite five users.
- **Next step:** Pick five users and write a one-page rollback plan.
- **Recheck if:** Support takes more than one day per user.
```

The goal is not full agreement. The goal is clear disagreement before a choice.

Source: [SKILL.md on GitHub](https://github.com/agenticluke/decision-council-plus/blob/main/skill/SKILL.md)

## Third-party checks

No third-party reports yet.

## Provenance

[Signed by skilld at 138b8b1.](https://github.com/agenticluke/decision-council-plus/commit/138b8b1539bccae5edeb4d60d361e1b55c769657 "138b8b1539bccae5edeb4d60d361e1b55c769657") This ties the file your Agent reads to that commit on GitHub. It does not review the instructions.

Last checked against GitHub 4 weeks ago.

Activeupdated 4 weeks ago

## Capability

<dl>

<dt>origin</dt>
<dd>ECC</dd>

</dl>

## README badge

![README badge for agenticluke/decision-council-plus](https://skilld.dev/b/agenticluke/decision-council-plus?theme=light&label=0)

## Related skills

-
-
-
-
-
-