council

name: council description: Multi-perspective debate where specialized personas discuss topics in rounds, surface insights through intellectual friction. USE WHEN council, debate, multiple perspectives, should we, decision, trade-offs, weigh options, pros and cons, architectural decision.

Council: Multi-Perspective Debate

Multi-perspective debate system where specialized personas discuss topics in rounds, respond to each other's points, and surface insights through intellectual friction. Collaborative-adversarial: debate to find the best path, not to destroy ideas.

Customization

Check for user customizations at: ~/.augment/USER/SKILLCUSTOMIZATIONS/Council/PREFERENCES.md

If this file exists, load and apply preferences found there. They override defaults below.

Key Distinction

• Council = collaborative-adversarial (debate to find best path). Produces visible transcripts.
• Red Team = purely adversarial (attack the idea). Produces steelman + counter-argument.

Use Council for decisions. Use Red Team for stress-testing.

Council Members

Adopt each perspective sequentially. Each member brings a structurally different viewpoint.

Default Members

Optional Members (add as needed)

Two Modes

Mode 1: Full Debate (3 Rounds)

Use for important decisions, architectural choices, and anything with significant trade-offs.

Round 1: Initial Positions

Adopt each persona sequentially. Each gives their take from their specialized perspective. No interaction yet -- just establishing positions.

For each persona (50-150 words each):

• State your key concern, recommendation, or insight
• Speak from your specialized perspective
• Be specific and substantive

Round 2: Responses and Challenges

Adopt each persona again. This time, each responds to specific points from Round 1.

For each persona (50-150 words each):

• Reference specific points others made ("I disagree with Architect's point about X because...")
• Challenge assumptions or add nuance
• Build on points you agree with
• The value is in genuine intellectual friction -- engage with actual arguments

Round 3: Synthesis

Adopt each persona a final time. Each identifies areas of agreement, remaining disagreement, and their final recommendation.

For each persona (50-150 words each):

• Where does the council agree?
• Where do you still disagree?
• What is your final recommendation given the full discussion?
• Be honest about remaining disagreements -- forced consensus is worse than acknowledged tension

Council Synthesis

After all three rounds, produce a unified synthesis:

## Council Debate: [Topic]

### Round 1: Initial Positions
**Architect:** [Position]
**Designer:** [Position]
**Engineer:** [Position]
**Researcher:** [Position]

### Round 2: Responses and Challenges
**Architect:** [Response referencing others' points]
**Designer:** [Response referencing others' points]
**Engineer:** [Response referencing others' points]
**Researcher:** [Response referencing others' points]

### Round 3: Synthesis
**Architect:** [Final position]
**Designer:** [Final position]
**Engineer:** [Final position]
**Researcher:** [Final position]

### Council Synthesis

**Areas of Convergence:**
- [Points where multiple members agreed]

**Remaining Disagreements:**
- [Points still contested, with trade-offs acknowledged]

**Recommended Path:**
[Synthesized recommendation based on convergence and weight of arguments]

Mode 2: Quick Consensus (1 Round)

Use for sanity checks, fast validation, and low-stakes decisions.

For each persona (30-50 words each):

• Give your immediate take from your specialized perspective
• Be direct and specific
• Key concern, insight, or recommendation only

## Quick Council: [Topic]

### Perspectives
**Architect:** [Brief take]
**Designer:** [Brief take]
**Engineer:** [Brief take]
**Researcher:** [Brief take]

### Quick Summary
**Consensus:** [Do they generally agree? On what?]
**Concerns:** [Any red flags raised?]
**Recommendation:** [Proceed / Reconsider / Need full debate]

Escalation: If Quick Consensus reveals significant disagreement or complex trade-offs, escalate to Full Debate.

Output Requirements

Must Include (Full Debate): Specific references to other personas' points in Rounds 2 and 3.

Must Avoid: Generic opinions, restating positions without engagement, performative agreement.

Examples

Architecture decision: "Council: Should we use WebSockets or SSE for real-time updates?" --> Full Debate with 3 rounds

Quick validation: "Quick council check: Is this API design reasonable?" --> Quick Consensus, single round

Domain-specific: "Council with security: Evaluate this auth approach" --> Full Debate with Security persona added

Best Practices

1. Use Quick Consensus for sanity checks; Full Debate for important decisions
2. Add domain-specific personas as needed (security for auth, etc.)
3. Review the transcript -- insights emerge from the responses, not just initial positions
4. Trust multi-persona convergence when it occurs naturally
5. Acknowledge tensions honestly; do not force artificial agreement

Anti-Patterns

• Echo Chamber: All personas agree too easily -- push for genuine disagreement
• Surface-Level Takes: Generic opinions without substantive engagement
• Ignoring Responses: Round 2/3 personas that do not reference others' actual points
• Forced Consensus: Papering over real trade-offs with vague compromise language
• Persona Collapse: All personas sounding the same instead of maintaining distinct perspectives