Install
$ agentstack add skill-cofin-flow-consensus ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Consensus
Structured decision evaluation through stance rotation — analyze from advocate, critic, and neutral perspectives, then synthesize into a confidence-rated recommendation with concrete next steps.
Workflow
Step 1: Select Mode
| Decision Scope | Mode | Reason | | -------------- | ---- | ------ | | Bounded, reversible | Sequential (default) | All perspectives in one pass — fast | | Multi-month or irreversible | Subagent | Three isolated subagents prevent cross-contamination | | Perspectives suspiciously aligned | Escalate to Subagent | Lack of genuine disagreement signals contamination |
Use subagent mode when: the decision impacts more than 3 months of work, multiple teams are affected, or sequential perspectives align too easily (suspiciously low disagreement likely signals contamination — isolated subagents are required to get genuine divergence).
See references/consensus-strategy.md for full escalation criteria.
Step 2: Stance Rotation
Rotate through three perspectives (see references/stance-rotation.md for detailed prompts):
- Neutral — state the decision, list all factors (technical, organizational, timeline, risk), note missing information, present assessment without leaning toward a conclusion.
- Advocate — build the strongest case FOR: what problems does it solve, what synergies does it create, how can challenges be overcome? Subject to ethical guardrails — refuse to advocate if fundamentally harmful.
- Critic — rigorous scrutiny: real risks, overlooked complexities, simpler alternatives, flawed assumptions? Subject to ethical guardrails — acknowledge if the proposal is genuinely sound.
In subagent mode, dispatch three isolated subagents (one per stance) with identical context. Subagents must NOT see each other's output.
Step 3: Synthesize
Weigh all three perspectives and produce a recommendation:
- Points of agreement — where all perspectives align (strong signal)
- Points of disagreement — where they diverge and why
- Recommendation — with confidence level: low / medium / high
- Would change if — conditions that would flip the recommendation
- Next steps — concrete actions based on the recommendation
Validation Checkpoint
Before delivering the synthesis, verify:
- [ ] Each perspective contributed at least one unique point not raised by the others
- [ ] The critic identified at least one genuine risk (not manufactured disagreement)
- [ ] The recommendation confidence level is justified by the degree of inter-perspective agreement
- [ ] If all three perspectives agree too easily, escalate to subagent mode
Example
Decision: "Should we migrate from REST to GraphQL?"
| Perspective | Key Finding | |-------------|-------------| | Neutral | Current REST API has 47 endpoints; clients use ad-hoc field filtering. GraphQL would reduce over-fetching but adds schema maintenance. | | Advocate | Mobile clients would cut payload size ~60%. Single endpoint simplifies versioning. Strong ecosystem tooling available. | | Critic | Team has no GraphQL experience — 2-3 month learning curve. Caching is harder. Existing REST clients need migration path. |
Synthesis:
- Agreement: Current API has over-fetching problems worth solving.
- Disagreement: Whether the learning curve cost is justified given timeline.
- Recommendation: Adopt GraphQL for new endpoints only (confidence: medium).
- Would change if: Team had prior GraphQL experience (→ high confidence, full migration) or deadline is
References
- [Consensus Strategy](references/consensus-strategy.md) — Mode selection and escalation criteria
- [Stance Rotation](references/stance-rotation.md) — Detailed rotation steps, subagent dispatch, synthesis framework
- [Stance Prompts](../perspectives/references/stances.md) — Advocate, critic, neutral prompts with ethical guardrails (from perspectives skill)
Guardrails
Add guardrails instructions here.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: cofin
- Source: cofin/flow
- License: Apache-2.0
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.