Menu

Individual skill

Council

Multi-agent collaborative debate producing visible round-by-round transcripts with real intellectual friction — members are topic-briefed custom agents, run as a 3-round DEBATE or a 1-round QUICK check, to find the best path. USE WHEN council, debate, multiple perspectives, weigh options, deliberate, get different views, what would experts say, pros and cons. NOT FOR pure adversarial attack (use RedTeam).

LifeOS/install/skills/Council/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit b7efec97d8c3885feee285bee468c35602fb0606

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Local scripts
Last checked
Nov 2, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

Standard SKILL.md format has not been attested at this commit. No installation command is available; inspect the source.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
19,761
Repository last updated
Nov 5, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Council

Runs a multi-agent debate. Topic-briefed members discuss a topic over rounds, respond to each other's actual points, and surface insights through real intellectual friction. You get a visible round-by-round transcript plus a synthesis. DEBATE runs three rounds; QUICK runs one for a fast perspective check.

One model gives one frame and one set of blind spots, and "pros and cons" gives a flat list with no one pushing back; distinct experts who disagree on the merits expose the weak parts of an idea before you commit.

## Ideal State

- Every council is four different topic-specific member briefs, written before the first round runs, each giving a name, the member's role/expertise, the stance they hold, and what they'll push on; no member is a bare built-in agent type with no persona.
- The members are split across vendors so the debate never shares one lineage's blind spots; a member that failed or did not run on its requested vendor is named in the transcript, never silently dropped or kept.
- Every member argues from the full context the request supplied (the measured facts, files, quotes and constraints), so positions engage the actual decision rather than a generic version of it.
- Members answer each other's actual points by name, and the transcript shows that friction round by round.
- The output ends in a usable verdict (a recommended path for DEBATE, proceed / reconsider / escalate for QUICK) that states remaining disagreement instead of forcing consensus.
- The answer delivered is the finished debate; no member's work is still running when it is handed over.