# Konsilium > Council — 5 independent AI perspectives + mutual critique + synthesis (adapted from karpathy/llm-council for Claude Code). For high-stakes decisions where the answer does NOT follow unambiguously from the data — go/no-go before real consequences, critiquing a methodology, choosing between competing approaches, pressure-testing a conclusion you're attached to, designing risk controls. NOT for log/… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-sanexxxx777-curated-claude-code-konsilium` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [Sanexxxx777](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sanexxxx777) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [AI & ML](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/ai-and-ml) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [Sanexxxx777](https://github.com/Sanexxxx777) - **Source:** https://github.com/Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code/tree/main/skills/konsilium - **Website:** https://shulgin.is-a.dev ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-sanexxxx777-curated-claude-code-konsilium ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # /konsilium — the Council Question/decision: **$ARGUMENTS** The council gives **5 independent perspectives + mutual critique + synthesis** (karpathy/llm-council mechanism: independent opinions → anonymous peer review → chairman synthesizes). It does NOT compute data — it pressure-tests decisions and conclusions. So it's useful where **the cost of error is high and the answer does NOT follow unambiguously from the analysis**. > **Hard rule.** The council decides WHAT to test and whether to ACT; your harness (tests / backtest / live data) computes the RESULT. Pairing: council raises a hypothesis / surfaces a risk → you run an honest test → council helps decide whether to commit. Neither works alone. --- ## PHASE 0 — relevance gate (mandatory, before convening) Before spending the council — check it's actually its job. **✅ Convene:** - Go/no-go before real consequences (ship this config to production, raise the size, change the parameter). - Whether to trust an analysis / critique of methodology (sample, look-ahead, regime-dependence, i.i.d. assumptions). - Choosing between competing approaches with a real tradeoff. - Pressure-testing a conclusion you/the user are attached to. - Designing a risk control (circuit-breaker, exposure limit, safety switch). **❌ Don't convene — do it directly:** - Real log/data analysis — the council has no data access, compute it yourself. - A factual lookup (how an API works, a code detail) — that's lookup, not debate. - A mechanical code edit — just do it. - Something already settled by data — nothing to argue. If it's a ❌ — don't convene, say why, and do it directly. --- ## PHASE 1 — briefing The advisors don't see the data. Gather the facts yourself (numbers, configs, what's known, prior art) and write a **short neutral briefing**: - Context (what the system/strategy is, what's changing). - The decision/question in one line. - Known data (numbers, not interpretations). - Options on the table. - What's unknown / disputed. **No conclusion of your own** — don't lead the advisors to an answer. ## PHASE 2 — 5 independent advisors (in parallel) Launch 5 agents **in one message** (in parallel), each given: the briefing + its lens. Default lenses are general-purpose; swap them to fit the domain: 1. **Correctness skeptic** — is the reasoning sound? what assumption is load-bearing? what breaks it? 2. **Risk / downside** — worst case, blast radius, protection of the core asset, what happens at the worst outcome. 3. **Methodologist** — significance, sample, metric correctness, how to measure honestly, what's confounded. 4. **Execution / reality** — does it survive contact with the real world? second-order effects, hidden costs, operational friction. 5. **Devil's advocate** — attacks the core hypothesis, argues why NOT to do it and what's been missed. Each returns: a **verdict** (go / no-go / need test X) + 2–4 main arguments + what it would check BEFORE acting. ## PHASE 3 — mutual critique (in parallel) Give each advisor all 5 answers (anonymized, no role labels — so they don't side with "their own"). Ask each to: find holes in the others' arguments, re-rate its own verdict in light of the rest, state explicitly what it agrees and disagrees with. ## PHASE 4 — synthesis (you are the chairman) Assemble the final: - **Consensus** — where the advisors converge. - **Disagreements** — where they clash and why (that's the risk zone). - **Recommendation** — go / no-go / test X first. - **Risks** — the main ones, what to monitor after acting. - **What to run in the harness** — the concrete test to run BEFORE committing. Don't average opinions — **weigh by argument strength, not by majority**. If the user is attached to a conclusion — press, don't play along. --- ## Anti-patterns - Don't pass the council's opinion off as data: "the council said it's profitable" ≠ profitable. The harness decides outcomes. - Don't convene for lookup / mechanics / things already settled by data. - Don't skip Phase 3 (critique) — it's what catches the holes a single answer papers over. - Keep the briefing neutral. A leading framing → the council confirms your bias instead of surfacing the risk. --- ## Origin Mechanism — Andrej Karpathy, `github.com/karpathy/llm-council` (independent opinions → anonymized peer review → chairman synthesis). The original is a web app over OpenRouter using DIFFERENT models (GPT/Gemini/Claude/Grok). This is an adaptation for Claude Code: 5 subagents of one model with distinct role-lenses. For genuine multi-model diversity, wire in different providers via their APIs. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [Sanexxxx777](https://github.com/Sanexxxx777) - **Source:** [Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code](https://github.com/Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code) - **License:** MIT - **Homepage:** https://shulgin.is-a.dev 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-sanexxxx777-curated-claude-code-konsilium - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sanexxxx777 - 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%.