[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DE2GHBTY901F47DFKC744J":3,"skill-same:01M6DE2GHBTY901F47DFKC744J":51},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":25,"linkOnly":26,"markdownContent":27,"markdownBody":28,"frontMatter":29,"refName":31,"commitSha":32,"skillDirectory":33,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":34,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":35,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":36,"install":37,"resources":50},"01M6DE2GHBTY901F47DFKC744J","council",null,"Convene a four-voice council for ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go\u002Fno-go calls. Use when multiple valid paths exist and you need structured disagreement before choosing.","Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","Prekzursil","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F54636077?v=4","01M6DACZ1PCQHD99SCR1YXG28B","Andrei Mihai Visalon","01M6DACZ670WZF535V3WYYSS4Z",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fcouncil\u002FSKILL.md",[],[5,19,20,21,22,23,24],"go","valid","voice","decisions","use","structured","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: council\ndescription: Convene a four-voice council for ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go\u002Fno-go calls. Use when multiple valid paths exist and you need structured disagreement before choosing.\norigin: ECC\n---\n\n# Council\n\nConvene four advisors for ambiguous decisions:\n- the in-context Claude voice\n- a Skeptic subagent\n- a Pragmatist subagent\n- a Critic subagent\n\nThis is for **decision-making under ambiguity**, not code review, implementation planning, or architecture design.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse council when:\n- a decision has multiple credible paths and no obvious winner\n- you need explicit tradeoff surfacing\n- the user asks for second opinions, dissent, or multiple perspectives\n- conversational anchoring is a real risk\n- a go \u002F no-go call would benefit from adversarial challenge\n\nExamples:\n- monorepo vs polyrepo\n- ship now vs hold for polish\n- feature flag vs full rollout\n- simplify scope vs keep strategic breadth\n\n## When NOT to Use\n\n| Instead of council | Use |\n| --- | --- |\n| Verifying whether output is correct | `santa-method` |\n| Breaking a feature into implementation steps | `planner` |\n| Designing system architecture | `architect` |\n| Reviewing code for bugs or security | `code-reviewer` or `santa-method` |\n| Straight factual questions | just answer directly |\n| Obvious execution tasks | just do the task |\n\n## Roles\n\n| Voice | Lens |\n| --- | --- |\n| Architect | correctness, maintainability, long-term implications |\n| Skeptic | premise challenge, simplification, assumption breaking |\n| Pragmatist | shipping speed, user impact, operational reality |\n| Critic | edge cases, downside risk, failure modes |\n\nThe three external voices should be launched as fresh subagents with **only the question and relevant context**, not the full ongoing conversation. That is the anti-anchoring mechanism.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### 1. Extract the real question\n\nReduce the decision to one explicit prompt:\n- what are we deciding?\n- what constraints matter?\n- what counts as success?\n\nIf the question is vague, ask one clarifying question before convening the council.\n\n### 2. Gather only the necessary context\n\nIf the decision is codebase-specific:\n- collect the relevant files, snippets, issue text, or metrics\n- keep it compact\n- include only the context needed to make the decision\n\nIf the decision is strategic\u002Fgeneral:\n- skip repo snippets unless they materially change the answer\n\n### 3. Form the Architect position first\n\nBefore reading other voices, write down:\n- your initial position\n- the three strongest reasons for it\n- the main risk in your preferred path\n\nDo this first so the synthesis does not simply mirror the external voices.\n\n### 4. Launch three independent voices in parallel\n\nEach subagent gets:\n- the decision question\n- compact context if needed\n- a strict role\n- no unnecessary conversation history\n\nPrompt shape:\n\n```text\nYou are the [ROLE] on a four-voice decision council.\n\nQuestion:\n[decision question]\n\nContext:\n[only the relevant snippets or constraints]\n\nRespond with:\n1. Position — 1-2 sentences\n2. Reasoning — 3 concise bullets\n3. Risk — biggest risk in your recommendation\n4. Surprise — one thing the other voices may miss\n\nBe direct. No hedging. Keep it under 300 words.\n```\n\nRole emphasis:\n- Skeptic: challenge framing, question assumptions, propose the simplest credible alternative\n- Pragmatist: optimize for speed, simplicity, and real-world execution\n- Critic: surface downside risk, edge cases, and reasons the plan could fail\n\n### 5. Synthesize with bias guardrails\n\nYou are both a participant and the synthesizer, so use these rules:\n- do not dismiss an external view without explaining why\n- if an external voice changed your recommendation, say so explicitly\n- always include the strongest dissent, even if you reject it\n- if two voices align against your initial position, treat that as a real signal\n- keep the raw positions visible before the verdict\n\n### 6. Present a compact verdict\n\nUse this output shape:\n\n```markdown\n## Council: [short decision title]\n\n**Architect:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n**Skeptic:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n**Pragmatist:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n**Critic:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n### Verdict\n- **Consensus:** [where they align]\n- **Strongest dissent:** [most important disagreement]\n- **Premise check:** [did the Skeptic challenge the question itself?]\n- **Recommendation:** [the synthesized path]\n```\n\nKeep it scannable on a phone screen.\n\n## Persistence Rule\n\nDo **not** write ad-hoc notes to `~\u002F.claude\u002Fnotes` or other shadow paths from this skill.\n\nIf the council materially changes the recommendation:\n- use `knowledge-ops` to store the lesson in the right durable location\n- or use `\u002Fsave-session` if the outcome belongs in session memory\n- or update the relevant GitHub \u002F Linear issue directly if the decision changes active execution truth\n\nOnly persist a decision when it changes something real.\n\n## Multi-Round Follow-up\n\nDefault is one round.\n\nIf the user wants another round:\n- keep the new question focused\n- include the previous verdict only if it is necessary\n- keep the Skeptic as clean as possible to preserve anti-anchoring value\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- using council for code review\n- using council when the task is just implementation work\n- feeding the subagents the entire conversation transcript\n- hiding disagreement in the final verdict\n- persisting every decision as a note regardless of importance\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `santa-method` — adversarial verification\n- `knowledge-ops` — persist durable decision deltas correctly\n- `search-first` — gather external reference material before the council if needed\n- `architecture-decision-records` — formalize the outcome when the decision becomes long-lived system policy\n\n## Example\n\nQuestion:\n\n```text\nShould we ship ECC 2.0 as alpha now, or hold until the control-plane UI is more complete?\n```\n\nLikely council shape:\n- Architect pushes for structural integrity and avoiding a confused surface\n- Skeptic questions whether the UI is actually the gating factor\n- Pragmatist asks what can be shipped now without harming trust\n- Critic focuses on support burden, expectation debt, and rollout confusion\n\nThe value is not unanimity. The value is making the disagreement legible before choosing.\n","# Council\n\nConvene four advisors for ambiguous decisions:\n- the in-context Claude voice\n- a Skeptic subagent\n- a Pragmatist subagent\n- a Critic subagent\n\nThis is for **decision-making under ambiguity**, not code review, implementation planning, or architecture design.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse council when:\n- a decision has multiple credible paths and no obvious winner\n- you need explicit tradeoff surfacing\n- the user asks for second opinions, dissent, or multiple perspectives\n- conversational anchoring is a real risk\n- a go \u002F no-go call would benefit from adversarial challenge\n\nExamples:\n- monorepo vs polyrepo\n- ship now vs hold for polish\n- feature flag vs full rollout\n- simplify scope vs keep strategic breadth\n\n## When NOT to Use\n\n| Instead of council | Use |\n| --- | --- |\n| Verifying whether output is correct | `santa-method` |\n| Breaking a feature into implementation steps | `planner` |\n| Designing system architecture | `architect` |\n| Reviewing code for bugs or security | `code-reviewer` or `santa-method` |\n| Straight factual questions | just answer directly |\n| Obvious execution tasks | just do the task |\n\n## Roles\n\n| Voice | Lens |\n| --- | --- |\n| Architect | correctness, maintainability, long-term implications |\n| Skeptic | premise challenge, simplification, assumption breaking |\n| Pragmatist | shipping speed, user impact, operational reality |\n| Critic | edge cases, downside risk, failure modes |\n\nThe three external voices should be launched as fresh subagents with **only the question and relevant context**, not the full ongoing conversation. That is the anti-anchoring mechanism.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### 1. Extract the real question\n\nReduce the decision to one explicit prompt:\n- what are we deciding?\n- what constraints matter?\n- what counts as success?\n\nIf the question is vague, ask one clarifying question before convening the council.\n\n### 2. Gather only the necessary context\n\nIf the decision is codebase-specific:\n- collect the relevant files, snippets, issue text, or metrics\n- keep it compact\n- include only the context needed to make the decision\n\nIf the decision is strategic\u002Fgeneral:\n- skip repo snippets unless they materially change the answer\n\n### 3. Form the Architect position first\n\nBefore reading other voices, write down:\n- your initial position\n- the three strongest reasons for it\n- the main risk in your preferred path\n\nDo this first so the synthesis does not simply mirror the external voices.\n\n### 4. Launch three independent voices in parallel\n\nEach subagent gets:\n- the decision question\n- compact context if needed\n- a strict role\n- no unnecessary conversation history\n\nPrompt shape:\n\n```text\nYou are the [ROLE] on a four-voice decision council.\n\nQuestion:\n[decision question]\n\nContext:\n[only the relevant snippets or constraints]\n\nRespond with:\n1. Position — 1-2 sentences\n2. Reasoning — 3 concise bullets\n3. Risk — biggest risk in your recommendation\n4. Surprise — one thing the other voices may miss\n\nBe direct. No hedging. Keep it under 300 words.\n```\n\nRole emphasis:\n- Skeptic: challenge framing, question assumptions, propose the simplest credible alternative\n- Pragmatist: optimize for speed, simplicity, and real-world execution\n- Critic: surface downside risk, edge cases, and reasons the plan could fail\n\n### 5. Synthesize with bias guardrails\n\nYou are both a participant and the synthesizer, so use these rules:\n- do not dismiss an external view without explaining why\n- if an external voice changed your recommendation, say so explicitly\n- always include the strongest dissent, even if you reject it\n- if two voices align against your initial position, treat that as a real signal\n- keep the raw positions visible before the verdict\n\n### 6. Present a compact verdict\n\nUse this output shape:\n\n```markdown\n## Council: [short decision title]\n\n**Architect:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n**Skeptic:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n**Pragmatist:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n**Critic:** [1-2 sentence position]\n[1 line on why]\n\n### Verdict\n- **Consensus:** [where they align]\n- **Strongest dissent:** [most important disagreement]\n- **Premise check:** [did the Skeptic challenge the question itself?]\n- **Recommendation:** [the synthesized path]\n```\n\nKeep it scannable on a phone screen.\n\n## Persistence Rule\n\nDo **not** write ad-hoc notes to `~\u002F.claude\u002Fnotes` or other shadow paths from this skill.\n\nIf the council materially changes the recommendation:\n- use `knowledge-ops` to store the lesson in the right durable location\n- or use `\u002Fsave-session` if the outcome belongs in session memory\n- or update the relevant GitHub \u002F Linear issue directly if the decision changes active execution truth\n\nOnly persist a decision when it changes something real.\n\n## Multi-Round Follow-up\n\nDefault is one round.\n\nIf the user wants another round:\n- keep the new question focused\n- include the previous verdict only if it is necessary\n- keep the Skeptic as clean as possible to preserve anti-anchoring value\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- using council for code review\n- using council when the task is just implementation work\n- feeding the subagents the entire conversation transcript\n- hiding disagreement in the final verdict\n- persisting every decision as a note regardless of importance\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `santa-method` — adversarial verification\n- `knowledge-ops` — persist durable decision deltas correctly\n- `search-first` — gather external reference material before the council if needed\n- `architecture-decision-records` — formalize the outcome when the decision becomes long-lived system policy\n\n## Example\n\nQuestion:\n\n```text\nShould we ship ECC 2.0 as alpha now, or hold until the control-plane UI is more complete?\n```\n\nLikely council shape:\n- Architect pushes for structural integrity and avoiding a confused surface\n- Skeptic questions whether the UI is actually the gating factor\n- Pragmatist asks what can be shipped now without harming trust\n- Critic focuses on support burden, expectation debt, and rollout confusion\n\nThe value is not unanimity. The value is making the disagreement legible before choosing.\n",{"name":5,"origin":30,"description":7},"ECC","main","a298c929b6cbd662e1fce54302ce520d5ceea1a5","skills\u002Fcouncil","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil","2026-11-02 14:30:57",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":38,"prompt":48,"zipAvailable":49},[39,42,45],{"tool":40,"command":41},"npx","npx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill council",{"tool":43,"command":44},"bunx","bunx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill council",{"tool":46,"command":47},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill council","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fcouncil\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[52,73,104,131,145,161],{"skillNo":53,"name":54,"nameZh":6,"description":55,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":56,"categories":57,"keywords":58,"publishedAt":25},"01M6DF7D7478R55P46REYH4QAC","clarify-requirements","Resolve genuine pre-execution ambiguity by scanning repo context, generating 1-6 grounded options, and asking 1-3 focused questions via AskUserQuestion. NOT for mid-task use (injection risk); NOT when the goal is already unambiguous; use to disambiguate vague prompts before any file edits.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fworkspace-hooks\u002Fskills\u002Fclarify-requirements\u002FSKILL.md",[],[59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,23,68,69,70,71,72],"clarify requirements","clarify","requirements","risk","options","task","prompts","goal","scanning","context","repo","injection","execution","file",{"skillNo":74,"name":75,"nameZh":6,"description":76,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":77,"categories":78,"keywords":84,"publishedAt":25},"01M6DF79CA4BHJS66J8EZDBPWJ","openmm-md","Run FREE, open-source, Windows-native GPU molecular dynamics via the openmm-md MCP (OpenMM + CUDA on the local NVIDIA GPU). Use for protein \u002F protein-ligand MD when you want a free stack or are on Windows without a Schrodinger license. Covers the full workflow (prepare, solvate, minimize, equilibrate, production, analyze, mmgbsa) AND an honest decision guide vs Schrodinger Desmond, including how to run Desmond legitimately on Linux or a cloud GPU with a real license. This is a deliberately LESSER free alternative and does NOT replace the schrodinger MCP tools. Do NOT use it to pick a free tool when a validated FEP+, WaterMap, IFD-MD, or Prime MM-GBSA result is actually required.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fmcp\u002Fopenmm-md-mcp\u002Fskill\u002Fopenmm-md\u002FSKILL.md",[79],{"categoryNo":80,"categoryName":81,"taxonomyType":82,"taxonomyTypeDesc":83},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,23,99,100,101,102,103],"openmm md","how","decision","pick","linux","analyze","tool","stack","open","NVIDIA","gpu","license","workflow","windows","free","molecular dynamics","local","do","MCP",{"skillNo":105,"name":106,"nameZh":6,"description":107,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":108,"categories":109,"keywords":116,"publishedAt":25},"01M6DF76C1MG85VEWP8VZCBNMN","visual-review","Take screenshots of web pages and UI using Playwright for visual review and iteration","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fvisual-review\u002FSKILL.md",[110,113],{"categoryNo":111,"categoryName":112,"taxonomyType":82,"taxonomyTypeDesc":83},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000003","演示文稿",{"categoryNo":114,"categoryName":115,"taxonomyType":82,"taxonomyTypeDesc":83},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",[117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,86,127,128,129,130],"review","visual","visual review","pages","web","false","iteration","take","check","slides","ui","screenshot","playwright","screenshots",{"skillNo":132,"name":133,"nameZh":6,"description":134,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":135,"categories":136,"keywords":137,"publishedAt":25},"01M6DF73AQVCBZKEN0YXEX9FXP","status","Diagnostic status report — shows metaswarm installation state, project setup, and potential issues","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstatus\u002FSKILL.md",[],[133,138,139,140,141,142,143,144],"setup","report","project","installation","project setup","issues","state",{"skillNo":146,"name":147,"nameZh":6,"description":148,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":149,"categories":150,"keywords":152,"publishedAt":25},"01M6DF6X6C2XB0P6GX76P7TTYV","start","Use when starting work on any task, when the user mentions metaswarm, or when the user wants to begin tracked development work","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstart\u002FSKILL.md",[151],{"categoryNo":80,"categoryName":81,"taxonomyType":82,"taxonomyTypeDesc":83},[147,153,64,154,155,156,23,157,158,159,160],"start issue","issue","ready","work on issue","user","work","work on","development",{"skillNo":162,"name":138,"nameZh":6,"description":163,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":164,"categories":165,"keywords":166,"publishedAt":25},"01M6DF6QMJ9AJKFKHHKRT005PQ","Interactive project setup — detects your project, configures metaswarm, writes project-local files","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fsetup\u002FSKILL.md",[],[138,140,101,167,142,168],"files","interactive"]