Evaluate a strategic choice through multiple executive roles, each forming an independent view before discussion. Produce a board memo with recommendations, votes, dissent, risks, and success or stop conditions for the founder's decision.
/c-level-agents:boardroom [brief] — 6-phase multi-role deliberation across the C-suite with Phase 2 isolation, critic pre-screen, and synthesis. Outputs a board memo. Use when a decision spans multiple executive domains — e.g. a pricing change touching finance, positioning, and product, or a raise-vs-cut runway call.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Command: /c-level-agents:boardroom <brief-path>
Runs the board-meeting skill protocol across the C-suite for a single strategy brief. This is the heart of the plugin — the multi-role deliberation that gstack's review chain only approximates.
/c-level-agents:office-hours → /c-level-agents:brief → /c-level-agents:boardroom → /c-level-agents:decide → /c-level-agents:execute → /c-level-agents:post-mortem
↑ you are here
executive-mentor/devils-advocate agent runs /em:challenge on the leading option./c-level-agents:decide for logging.Saved to ~/.claude/boardroom/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md:
# Board Memo: <topic>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Brief:** <link to /c-level-agents:brief file>
**Status:** AWAITING FOUNDER DECISION | APPROVED | REJECTED
## Question
[One sentence from the brief]
## Recommended Option
**<Option name>** — chosen because <synthesis reasoning>
## Vote Tally
| Advisor | Vote | One-Sentence Reason |
|---|---|---|
| cs-ceo-advisor | A | <reason> |
| cs-cfo-advisor | A | <reason> |
| cs-cto-advisor | B | <reason> |
| ... | | |
## Dissent
- **<dissenter>:** <unresolved concern>
## Devil's Advocate Concerns
1. **CRITICAL** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
2. **HIGH** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
3. **MEDIUM** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
## Success & Kill Criteria
[Copied from brief, refined by the panel]
## Recommended Decision Path
- `/c-level-agents:decide` → log the decision
- `/c-level-agents:execute` → 90-day plan
- `/c-level-agents:cross-eval` → multi-model sanity check (optional, high-stakes)
- `/c-level-agents:freeze N` → cooldown lock (optional, irreversible)
If advisors see each other's positions before forming their own, they anchor. Phase 2 isolation is the single highest-leverage practice in the board-meeting protocol — it surfaces the dissents that sycophancy would have suppressed.
gstack /autoplan | /c-level-agents:boardroom | |
|---|---|---|
| Roles | CEO → design → eng (3) | Up to 10 C-roles |
| Order | Sequential | Phase 2 isolation, then simultaneous |
| Dissent capture | Implicit | Explicit dissent column |
| Adversarial pass | No | Phase 4 devil's advocate |
| Output | Reviewed plan | Voted memo with dissent + kill criteria |
~/.claude/briefs/<file>/em:challenge on leading option (Phase 4)/c-level-agents:decide — log approved memo/c-level-agents:cross-eval — high-stakes second opinion/c-level-agents:freeze — cooldown lockcs-chief-of-staffboard-meeting, executive-mentorVersion: 1.0.0
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Audit web applications for accessibility issues against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, the web accessibility standards. Get framework-specific code fixes, contrast checks, verification steps, and reports, with options for automated checks in development pipelines.
Plan A/B tests that compare page variations, from headlines to pricing layouts. Define a hypothesis, choose success metrics, calculate sample size and duration, and prepare launch checks and results reports to support decisions.
Create paid ad headlines and body copy tailored to each platform's character limits. Use existing performance data to develop variations, explore new messaging angles, and check copy for length, quality, and potential rejection risks.
Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.
Audit and improve content intended for citation in AI answers. Review evidence, author information, and structure, generate revised content and structured metadata, and keep a local record of observed citations across AI services.
Create signed records for consequential agent actions such as deployments, deletions, and payments. Decide which actions need evidence, record the agent, action, target, and policy, then verify the resulting certificate offline to detect later changes.