본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

skill-council

Gather advice from multiple language models assigned different roles, then combine their proposals and critiques into a recommendation. Set budget and depth limits while retaining disagreements, minority views, and risks for decisions or implementation planning.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Run a configurable multi-LLM council with personas, budget caps, synthesis, veto gates, and optional implementation handoff.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Comparing options before a decision
  • Reviewing code or strategy from several perspectives
  • Preparing an implementation plan with risks
  • Gathering advice within a set budget

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md7.7 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml162 B

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Council

Use this skill for /octo:council and council-style requests.

EXECUTION CONTRACT: MANDATORY

/octo:council is a runner-backed workflow. Execute the real shell runner by default:

"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-$HOME/.claude-octopus/plugin}/scripts/orchestrate.sh" council <user arguments>

Sandbox-safe invocation (required under Claude Code's sandbox). orchestrate.sh must be the FIRST token of the command. The sandbox's unsandboxed-command allowlist is a leading-anchored prefix match, so a command that begins with cd …, an inline VAR=… env-assignment, or any other prefix will NOT match an …/orchestrate.sh * entry — the runner then executes sandboxed and its codex/agy seat children fail to write temp files (Operation not permitted, agy mkstemp in /var/folders), so the council abandons the runner and falls back to direct single-provider dispatch. To run against a worktree, pass --dir <path> (the runner already honors -d/--dir) instead of wrapping in cd <path> && …; set any environment in a separate prior step or via a leading env VAR=… /abs/path/orchestrate.sh council … so the resolvable binary path is still first. Never prefix the runner with cd.

Do not simulate a council, role-play all members inside the current model, or answer directly in place of the runner. A single-model simulation must be explicitly requested with --simulate or --single-model; when used, label the output as single-model simulation and keep the generated summary.json path visible. Otherwise, missing provider quorum is a partial/failed council, not permission to silently downgrade.

Phase 0A: Interactive Clarification

If the user invokes /octo:council with an ambiguous task, missing goal/depth intent, uncertain implementation permission, or unclear research/corpus expectations, use AskUserQuestion before running the council runner. If the prompt already includes clear flags and a clear task, skip this phase and execute immediately.

Use 2-4 mutually exclusive choices per question, put the recommended option first, and map the answers to runner flags before execution. Do not end with a free-form question or a set of questions; present the choice interaction and wait for the answer.

Default council clarification:

AskUserQuestion({
  questions: [
    {
      question: "How should the council handle this request?",
      header: "Council Goal",
      multiSelect: false,
      options: [
        {label: "Advice (Recommended)", description: "Return a structured recommendation without implementation"},
        {label: "Decision", description: "Optimize for choosing between specific options"},
        {label: "Implementation plan", description: "Produce a plan but do not edit files"},
        {label: "Review", description: "Critique existing code, docs, or strategy"}
      ]
    },
    {
      question: "How deep should the council go?",
      header: "Depth",
      multiSelect: false,
      options: [
        {label: "Standard (Recommended)", description: "Balanced cost and coverage"},
        {label: "Quick", description: "Faster, lower-cost pass"},
        {label: "Deep", description: "More critique and revision, higher cost"}
      ]
    },
    {
      question: "Should the council use project research or corpus storage?",
      header: "Context",
      multiSelect: false,
      options: [
        {label: "No corpus (Recommended)", description: "Run with the provided prompt and write normal run artifacts"},
        {label: "Research first", description: "Add --research-first before provider fanout"},
        {label: "Append corpus", description: "Use --corpus-mode append for durable project notes"},
        {label: "Require corpus", description: "Use --corpus-mode require and stop if no corpus workspace exists"}
      ]
    }
  ]
})

Translate answers as follows:

  • Advice, Decision, Implementation plan, or Review -> --goal advice|decision|plan|review
  • Quick, Standard, or Deep -> --depth quick|standard|deep
  • Research first -> --research-first
  • Append corpus or Require corpus -> --corpus-mode append|require

Phase 0: Preflight

Collect or infer:

  • goal: advice, decision, plan, implement, or review
  • domain: auto, architecture, product, security, business, research, or docs
  • style: balanced, adversarial, implementation, executive, or red-team
  • depth: quick, standard, or deep
  • members: auto, 3, 5, or 7
  • budget cap in USD
  • providers and provider availability
  • pinned personas
  • implementation permission and worktree isolation
  • whether research must happen before council fanout (--research-first)
  • whether findings, research, synthesis, and plans must be appended to the project corpus (--corpus-mode append|require)

Show the selected council, provider availability, benchmark freshness, quorum requirement, and cost estimate before provider fanout. Re-check the budget before critique, revision, synthesis, and implementation planning so the run stops before the next phase would exceed --max-cost. If the run is a dry run, stop after this preflight and write summary.json.

If --research-first is set, gather local corpus evidence first, then current external sources when allowed. Store concise findings as run artifacts before provider fanout. If --corpus-mode append or --corpus-mode require is set, append the research notes, findings, synthesis, and implementation plan to the project's durable corpus conventions before claiming completion; require must stop when no corpus workspace is available.

Quorum

  • quick requires at least one non-chair response plus a synthesis-capable chair
  • standard and deep require at least two non-chair responses plus a synthesis-capable chair
  • if the chair fails, retry once with the highest-scoring synthesis-capable fallback
  • if quorum is lost, stop by default and present partial artifacts instead of pretending consensus exists

Council Procedure

  1. Independent advice: ask each selected persona for recommendation, assumptions, risks, implementation notes, and confidence.
  2. Cross-critique: for standard/deep runs, semi-anonymize responses and ask members to critique gaps, assumptions, and risks.
  3. Revision: for deep runs or high disagreement, let members revise their positions after critique.
  4. Chair synthesis: produce agreement, disagreement, minority reports, risk register, implementation path, confidence, and conditions that would change the recommendation.
  5. Ratify / veto: verifier, red-team, security, legal, finance, and medical roles can veto implementation for critical risks.

Implementation Gates

  • Gate A: user accepts the council synthesis or asks for revision.
  • Gate B: user accepts the concrete implementation plan generated from the synthesis.
  • Gate C: execution proceeds through existing Octopus implementation safety behavior. This is a one-shot authorization for the accepted plan, not per-file approval, unless existing safety hooks detect destructive or risky actions.

Never implement from council output without explicit approval. Preserve disagreement, summarize risks, and keep vetoes visible in the final answer and artifacts.

Interactive Choice Handling

When the user needs to clarify scope, select a depth/provider/corpus option, approve a gate, or decide between follow-up actions, use AskUserQuestion with 2-4 mutually exclusive choices. Put the recommended choice first. Do not end with a free-form question or a set of questions; present the choice interaction and wait for the answer.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Interpret the saved results of a completed AI council review. Count verdicts, check whether enough participants responded and whether models are independent, surface substantive dissent, and explain what action the outcome supports.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Explain a completed council review
  • Check vote counts and quorum
  • Assess model independence and dissent
nyldn/claude-octopus4.3천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Turn a technical choice into a structured debate between different AI model families. Assign explicit positions, launch the discussion, and summarize agreement, disagreement, and a recommendation supported by the strongest argument that survives the debate.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Compare Redis and Memcached for session storage
  • Debate monorepo versus polyrepo organization
  • Examine a technical choice from opposing positions
nyldn/claude-octopus4.3천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Clarify a feature’s requirements with multiple AI providers, combining technical constraints with user and business needs. Produce a scoped definition covering priorities, edge cases, exclusions, and a requirements checklist before implementation begins.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Defining requirements for a user authentication system
  • Setting boundaries for a notification feature
  • Identifying technical constraints and edge cases
nyldn/claude-octopus4.3천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Review code or documents with available AI providers before delivery. Combine findings into a scored validation report that checks prior requirements and decisions, separates critical issues from warnings, and recommends next steps.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Review authentication code before release
  • Check API readiness before deployment
  • Review a PRD for missing requirements
nyldn/claude-octopus4.3천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Develop complex features or business documents by gathering approaches from available AI providers. Combine their perspectives with prior project decisions and quality checks to produce a proposed plan, then proceed with implementation after user confirmation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Planning and implementing a complex feature
  • Comparing approaches for an external service integration
  • Developing a product requirements document or strategy
nyldn/claude-octopus4.3천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Research technical, market, or academic topics through multiple available AI providers working in parallel. Combine their findings into a report that preserves disagreements, identifies gaps, attributes sources, and recommends next steps with priorities.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Comparing libraries and implementation patterns
  • Researching markets and competitors
  • Synthesizing literature on a topic
nyldn/claude-octopus4.3천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

nyldn의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고