# Review Council

> Multi-persona council for architecture and design reviews. Independent expert subagents review, debate, and converge on a verdict with human input. Invoked by /design-review.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-indranildchandra-claude-local-starter-review-council`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [indranildchandra](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/indranildchandra)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [indranildchandra](https://github.com/indranildchandra)
- **Source:** https://github.com/indranildchandra/claude-local-starter/tree/main/skills/review-council

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-indranildchandra-claude-local-starter-review-council
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Review Council Protocol

## Token budget — read this first

**Load personas on demand, never all at once.**
- There are 20+ persona files. Loading all of them would consume the entire context window.
- In Phase 2 you select 3–6 personas. Load **only those files** — nothing else.
- Each persona subagent receives **only**: its own persona file + domain profile + scope brief. No other context.
- Subagents run in isolation — they do not inherit the parent session's full context.
- Persona outputs returned to the parent are compressed (max 300 words each).
- If you find yourself loading more than 6 persona files, stop and reduce the council size.

## Overview

The council reviews code, architecture, or design decisions using independent expert personas that debate, challenge each other, and converge on a verdict. The human engineer is an active participant, not a passive recipient.

**Minimum council size:** 3 personas.
**Council size by complexity:**
- `simple` (single component, low risk): 3 personas
- `medium` (cross-cutting feature, moderate risk): 4–5 personas
- `complex` (system-level, high risk, multiple teams): 5–6 personas

**Always include at least one of:** `staff-engineer`, `cloud-cost-architect`, `appsec-architect` — cost and security angles must be represented in every council.

---

## Phase 0 — Scope + Early Human Input

1. If `/design-review` was called with a scope argument, use it as-is.
2. If no argument: run a quick repo scan (1 Haiku subagent, `gitnexus ctx_search` or file glob) to identify the highest-risk or most recently changed area. Propose this as scope.
3. **Present to human and ask:**
   - "Does this scope look right, or do you want to focus elsewhere?"
   - "What concerns you most about this? Any known constraints (deadline, regulatory, performance budget)?"
   - "Any personas you want added or removed from the council?"
4. Record answers verbatim as the **Phase 0 Human Brief** — this shapes everything downstream.
5. If the user requests a persona not in `standard-personas/`: generate it using the schema in `user-generated-personas/README.md`, save it to `user-generated-personas/.md` globally, then use it in this session.

---

## Phase 1 — Domain Fingerprinting *(1 Haiku subagent)*

**Input:** scope from Phase 0
**Task:** Analyse the scoped code/design and output:
- Tech stack and architectural patterns
- Key risk areas
- Scale characteristics (current and anticipated)
- **Complexity rating:** `simple` | `medium` | `complex`

**Output format (compressed, ~200 words):**
```
Domain: 
Stack: 
Patterns: 
Risk areas: 
Scale: 
Complexity: simple | medium | complex
```

---

## Phase 2 — Persona Selection *(main context)*

1. From Phase 1 domain profile + Phase 0 human input, select personas from `standard-personas/`.
2. Load **only** the selected persona files — do not load all 20.
3. Apply council size rule from complexity rating.
4. Ensure at least one of: `staff-engineer`, `cloud-cost-architect`, `appsec-architect`.
5. Add any user-requested custom personas.
6. Present the council lineup to the human: "Council will be: [list]. Proceed?"

---

## Phase 3 — Independent Review *(N parallel subagents)*

**One subagent per persona.** Model is specified in each persona file's frontmatter.

**Each subagent receives ONLY:**
- The persona file (defines their role and review lens)
- The domain profile from Phase 1
- The scope brief and Phase 0 Human Brief

**Subagents are isolated** — they cannot see each other's output.

**Each subagent returns this compressed structure (max 300 words):**
```
## [Persona Name]
**Stance:** proceed | caution | block
**Top findings:**
- 
- 
- 
**Blocker (if any):** 
**Questions to council:**
- 
- 
```

---

## Phase 4 — Council Session *(main context)*

1. Present all Phase 3 outputs together.
2. For each persona, write a brief response (2-4 sentences) to the key challenges raised by the others that affect their domain.
3. Identify from the debate:
   - **Converged concerns** — issues ≥2 personas flagged independently (highest signal)
   - **Blocking concerns** — issues that must be resolved before proceeding
     - Rule: 1 persona to raise a blocker, 2 personas to dismiss it
     - Human can unilaterally override any blocker — override is recorded explicitly with rationale
   - **Domain opinions** — valid tradeoffs that don't block
   - **Open questions** — cannot be resolved without more information or human input

---

## Phase 5 — Human Input *(interactive pause)*

Present to the human:
- Summary of converged concerns (max 3 bullets)
- Any blocking concerns
- 2–3 pointed questions the council cannot resolve without human input (priorities, constraints, risk tolerance, product decisions)

Wait for human response. Record verbatim.

**If human overrides a blocker:** Record: *"[Human] overrode blocker raised by [Persona]: [blocker]. Stated rationale: [rationale]."*

---

## Phase 6 — Synthesis *(main context)*

1. Incorporate Phase 5 human input into the council's conclusions.
2. Resolve open questions where possible given human input.
3. State the final verdict clearly:
   - `Proceed as-is` — no material concerns
   - `Proceed with modifications` — list specific modifications required
   - `Redesign required` — list blocking concerns that must be addressed first
4. Produce action items with owners (persona domain or "human").

---

## Phase 7 — Record *(writes files)*

1. Invoke `aidlc-tracking` formats.md for exact template.
2. Append full council session → `docs/design-review.md`
3. Append one-liner → `tasks/tracker.md`:
   ```
   ## YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS — Design review: 
   **Type:** task-complete
   **Outcome:** .  personas.  blockers. Key finding: .
   **Files changed:** docs/design-review.md
   ```

---

## Token budget guidelines

- Phase 1 subagent output: ~200 words (Haiku, fast)
- Phase 3 persona outputs: ~300 words each (Haiku or Sonnet per persona file)
- Phase 4 debate: in-context, keep each persona response to 3-4 sentences
- Total target: council fits within parent context window; typical session ~8-15k tokens
- If complexity is `simple`, Phase 4 debate can be abbreviated — personas may agree quickly

---

## Persona library

Standard personas are in `standard-personas/` — load only the files selected in Phase 2.
User-defined personas are in `user-generated-personas/` — same loading rule.

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [indranildchandra](https://github.com/indranildchandra)
- **Source:** [indranildchandra/claude-local-starter](https://github.com/indranildchandra/claude-local-starter)
- **License:** MIT

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

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-indranildchandra-claude-local-starter-review-council
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/indranildchandra
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.