6362a7cf88
Each expert now has a personal name, background, and motive paragraph —
councils produce real disagreement instead of committee mush. Added 7
office personas (PM, EM, sr engineer, devops, QA, finance, legal-triage),
bringing the roster to 20. Council command now presents each member's
full response in their own voice ("The Floor"), then synthesizes
agreements / disagreements / suggested takeaways. add-expert template
updated to require the same shape going forward.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
74 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
74 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: council
|
|
description: Convene a council of expert perspectives on a hard question. Selects 2-5 named expert personas that best match the topic, runs them in parallel, presents each one's full opinion in turn (so the user hears every voice), then synthesizes agreements, disagreements, and suggested takeaways.
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
arguments:
|
|
- name: question
|
|
description: The question or problem to present to the council
|
|
required: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
You have been asked to convene a Council of Experts to address the following question:
|
|
|
|
$ARGUMENTS
|
|
|
|
## Instructions
|
|
|
|
1. **Review the question carefully.** Understand the domain, the specific problem, and what kind of expertise would help.
|
|
|
|
2. **Select 2-5 expert agents** from the council-of-experts plugin's `agents/` directory. Choose agents whose described expertise best matches the question's domain. Read the agent descriptions to understand their specializations. You do not need to use all agents — pick only those whose perspective would be genuinely useful. Prefer agents from this plugin when available; you may also use other available agents if they fit the question better.
|
|
|
|
3. **Launch all selected agents in parallel** using the Agent tool. Each agent should receive:
|
|
- The original question, exactly as stated
|
|
- Context about what the user is working on (if apparent from conversation history)
|
|
- An instruction to provide their expert perspective, concrete suggestions, and specific next steps — *in their own voice*, with their personal name on the byline
|
|
|
|
4. **After all agents return**, present the result to the user in this exact structure. Order matters: each persona is heard in full before any synthesis.
|
|
|
|
### Council Convened
|
|
|
|
One short paragraph naming who was called and why each was chosen. Use their **personal name (role)** — e.g., "Gerald Hoffman (senior engineer)".
|
|
|
|
### The Floor
|
|
|
|
Present each council member's response **in full**, in turn. Do not summarize, abridge, or rewrite their words — pass the agent's response through verbatim, prefixed by a header with their name and role.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### Gerald Hoffman — Senior Engineer
|
|
|
|
<verbatim agent response>
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### Maya Okonkwo — Accessibility Advocate
|
|
|
|
<verbatim agent response>
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The user wants to hear each expert as a distinct voice. Do not collapse them into bullet points.
|
|
|
|
### Where they agree
|
|
|
|
The points where multiple council members converge. Cite who agreed. Convergence is a strong signal — call it out.
|
|
|
|
### Where they disagree
|
|
|
|
Points of genuine disagreement, and what's driving each side. Not every council ends with disagreement; if everyone aligns, say so honestly rather than inventing tension.
|
|
|
|
### Suggested takeaways
|
|
|
|
A prioritized, actionable list combining the strongest recommendations. Each item names which council member(s) raised it. Three to seven items is the right range — fewer if the question was narrow, more only if the breadth genuinely warrants it.
|
|
|
|
## Important
|
|
|
|
- The Skeptic (Vera Kalinina) is almost always useful — include her unless the question is purely factual with no interpretation involved.
|
|
- Do NOT collapse council members' voices into a single synthesized paragraph. The user explicitly wants to hear each one in turn.
|
|
- If two members surface the same insight independently, flag it under "Where they agree" — that's a strong signal.
|
|
- If a member raises a concern no one else did, surface it in "Where they disagree" or "Suggested takeaways" — minority reports often catch real problems.
|
|
- Each council member has a personal name and a defined motive (see their agent file). Honor that — use their name in headers, and don't sand off their character in synthesis.
|
|
- Keep the closing synthesis tight. The user already read the floor; they don't want a recap, they want the punch line.
|