Council

This is a structured disagreement protocol for ambiguous decisions where multiple paths look reasonable. You spin up three independent subagents (Skeptic, Pragmatist, Critic) alongside your own Architect position, each seeing only the question and minimal context to avoid conversational anchoring. The payoff is making tradeoffs legible before you commit. Use it for go/no-go calls, monorepo versus polyrepo debates, or ship-now versus hold decisions. Skip it for code review, architecture design, or anything with a factual answer. The synthesis format forces you to surface the strongest dissent even when you reject it, which is the real disciplinary value here.

skills.sh installs: 3.9K
GitHub stars: 229.1K
last updated: Jul 14, 2026

View on GitHub

Install

$ npx -y skills add affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill council --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Files

Council

Convene four advisors for ambiguous decisions:

the in-context Claude voice
a Skeptic subagent
a Pragmatist subagent
a Critic subagent

This is for decision-making under ambiguity, not code review, implementation planning, or architecture design.

When to Use

Use council when:

a decision has multiple credible paths and no obvious winner
you need explicit tradeoff surfacing
the user asks for second opinions, dissent, or multiple perspectives
conversational anchoring is a real risk
a go / no-go call would benefit from adversarial challenge

Examples:

monorepo vs polyrepo
ship now vs hold for polish
feature flag vs full rollout
simplify scope vs keep strategic breadth

When NOT to Use

Instead of council	Use
Verifying whether output is correct	`santa-method`
Breaking a feature into implementation steps	`planner`
Designing system architecture	`architect`
Reviewing code for bugs or security	`code-reviewer` or `santa-method`
Straight factual questions	just answer directly
Obvious execution tasks	just do the task