AgentStack
SKILL verified Apache-2.0 Self-run

Consensus

skill-cofin-flow-consensus · by cofin

Use when comparing architectural choices, technology options, build-vs-buy decisions, feature proposals, high-impact tradeoffs, multi-team decisions, hard-to-reverse choices, or risk-heavy alternatives.

No reviews yet
0 installs
15 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-cofin-flow-consensus

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No 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.

Are you the author of Consensus? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

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):

  1. Neutral — state the decision, list all factors (technical, organizational, timeline, risk), note missing information, present assessment without leaning toward a conclusion.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. Points of agreement — where all perspectives align (strong signal)
  2. Points of disagreement — where they diverge and why
  3. Recommendation — with confidence level: low / medium / high
  4. Would change if — conditions that would flip the recommendation
  5. 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.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.