council

$council — Multi-Model Consensus Council (Codex Native)

Spawn parallel judges with different perspectives via spawn_agent, consolidate into consensus.

Quick Start

$council validate this plan                                    # verdict mode (the default)
$council --mode=brainstorm caching approaches                  # brainstorm mode
$council --mode=debate should we adopt event sourcing?         # debate mode (named personas duel)
$council --depth=quick validate recent                         # fast inline check
$council --roster=security-audit validate the auth system      # preset persona roster
$council --depth=deep --runtime=mixed --roster=leadership-quartet validate product thesis

Modes — the deliberation taxonomy

--mode selects one of exactly three deliberation patterns; verdict is the default.

| --mode | Pattern | Synthesis | |----------|---------|-----------| | brainstorm | diverge — judges generate options independently before any cross-talk | ranked set of ideas, perspectives, risks (no PASS/WARN/FAIL) | | debate | contend — independent positions → adversarial 0–1000 cross-scoring → reveal round | ranked decision with recorded dissent | | verdict (default) | converge — judges judge the artifact against the bar independently | one PASS / WARN / FAIL with consolidated findings |

verdict runs when --mode is omitted. validate is a verdict alias; research folds into brainstorm (--focus=research). --mode is the deliberation pattern; --focus/--depth/--runtime/--roster are orthogonal knobs. Every mode runs the same lifecycle — convene → brief → deliberate → synthesize → record. Full taxonomy and knob aliases: references/modes.md. Per-phase debate-mode templates: references/dueling-route.md.

Knob aliases: --depth=quick (alias --quick) = single inline judge; --depth=deep (alias --deep) = 3 judges; --runtime=mixed (alias --mixed) = matched Claude+Codex pairs.

Note: --adversarial is a verdict-mode intensifier (2 adversarial rounds), not the debate mode — it requires agent messaging. Use spawn_agent plus send_input for one-off follow-up only; do not rely on multi-round rounds without messaging support.

Note: --mixed is strict. Pre-flight codex and codex --version before spawning any judges; if Codex CLI is missing or not runnable, hard-error and tell the operator to install/fix Codex CLI or drop --mixed. Never silently convert --mixed into runtime-native-only judging.

Note: --profile=<name> follows the shared model-profile contract: balanced, budget, fast, inherit, quality, thorough. See references/model-profiles.md.

| Env var | Default | |---------|---------| | COUNCIL_CLAUDE_MODEL | sonnet | | COUNCIL_EXPLORER_MODEL | sonnet | | COUNCIL_CODEX_MODEL | unset; use Codex default (gpt-5.5 recommended when available) | | COUNCIL_TIMEOUT | 120 | | COUNCIL_EXPLORER_TIMEOUT | 60 | | COUNCIL_R2_TIMEOUT | 90 |

| Flag | Description | |------|-------------| | --technique=<name> | Brainstorm technique (reverse, scamper, six-hats). See references/brainstorm-techniques.md. | | --profile=<name> | Model quality profile (balanced, budget, fast, inherit, quality, thorough). See references/model-profiles.md. |

Mode inference (trigger words)

When --mode is omitted, infer the mode from the prompt; verdict is the fallback.

| --mode | Trigger Words | Focus | |----------|---------------|-------| | verdict (default) | validate, check, review, assess, critique | Is this correct? What's wrong? | | brainstorm | brainstorm, explore, options, approaches; research, investigate, deep dive, analyze | Alternatives, trade-offs, structure? | | debate | debate, duel, decide, "have <experts> decide", "council of <names>" | Which option wins when named experts cross-score? |

validate is a verdict alias; the research verb folds into brainstorm.

Execution Flow

Phase 1: Build Packet

1. Determine task type from user prompt
2. Identify target (files, diffs, plan, code)
3. Read relevant context files
4. Select perspectives (or use preset)

Phase 1a: Spawn Judges

Use one spawn_agent call per judge. Include the same context packet in each prompt and assign a distinct perspective.

Mixed-mode pairing (--mixed only): For --mixed, build the perspective list once. For each perspective, spawn ONE spawn_agent call AND ONE codex exec process with the SAME perspective string, SAME packet, SAME prompt — only the vendor differs. The pair holds perspective constant and varies only the vendor, enabling head-to-head cross-vendor comparison per perspective. Do NOT split perspectives across vendors (e.g., do NOT give Claude judges perspectives 1-3 and Codex judges perspectives 4-6). Total judges = 2 × len(perspectives); default = 6.

spawn_agent(message="You are judge-1.

Perspective: correctness

Task: validate the following target.
Target files: ...
Context: ...

Write your full analysis to .agents/council/judge-1.md and your verdict to the final paragraph.")

spawn_agent(message="You are judge-2.

Perspective: completeness

Task: validate the following target.
Target files: ...
Context: ...

Write your full analysis to .agents/council/judge-2.md and your verdict to the final paragraph.")

With --mixed, spawn the runtime-native judges above plus 3 Codex CLI judges. Codex CLI judges write under .agents/council/codex-{N}.json when --output-schema is supported, or .agents/council/codex-{N}.md as an output-format fallback only. See references/cli-spawning.md for the strict pre-flight and command shape.

Step 1b: Load Project Reviewer Config

Check for project-level reviewer configuration before spawning judges:

REVIEWER_CONFIG=".agents/reviewer-config.md"
if [ -f "$REVIEWER_CONFIG" ]; then
    # Parse YAML frontmatter for reviewer list
    # Use reviewers/plan_reviewers/skip_reviewers to select judge perspectives
fi

If reviewer-config.md exists:

• Use reviewers list to select which judge perspectives to spawn
• Use plan_reviewers for plan validation specifically
• Use skip_reviewers to exclude perspectives even if preset includes them
• Pass markdown body as additional context to all judges

If no config exists, use defaults (current behavior unchanged).

For schema details and an example, see references/reviewer-config-example.md.

Phase 1b: Wait for Judges

wait_agent(targets=["agent-id-1", "agent-id-2"])

If a judge needs follow-up, use send_input on that agent. If a judge stalls, close_agent it and proceed with the remaining responses.

Phase 2: Consolidation (Lead — Inline)

The lead reads each judge's output file and synthesizes:

1. Read each .agents/council/judge-*.md file
2. Compute consensus verdict:
3. PASS: All judges PASS (or majority PASS, none FAIL)
4. WARN: Any judge WARN, none FAIL
5. FAIL: Any judge FAIL
6. Core rules: All PASS -> PASS; Any FAIL -> FAIL; Mixed PASS/WARN -> WARN; cross-vendor disagreement -> DISAGREE.
7. Identify shared findings across judges
8. Surface disagreements with attribution
9. Generate final report

Phase 3: Write Report

Save to .agents/council/YYYY-MM-DD-<type>-<target>.md:

# Council Report: <type> <target>

**Consensus:** PASS/WARN/FAIL
**Judges:** N responded / N spawned
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## Shared Findings
- Finding 1 (judges 1, 2)
- Finding 2 (judges 1, 3)

## Disagreements
- Judge 1 says X, Judge 2 says Y

## Recommendations
1. ...
2. ...

## Individual Verdicts
| Judge | Perspective | Verdict | Confidence | Findings |
|-------|-------------|---------|------------|----------|
| judge-1 | correctness | PASS | high | 3 |
| judge-2 | completeness | WARN | medium | 5 |

Presets

| Preset | Perspectives | |--------|-------------| | default | correctness, completeness | | security-audit | vulnerability, attack-surfa