Council of High Intelligence

In my personal toolkit. I'm keeping this fork because it's something I use / follow — I haven't made code changes here, full credit to the original authors below.

Original project: https://github.com/0xNyk/council-of-high-intelligence

---

Council of High Intelligence

18 AI personas deliberate your hardest decisions across multiple LLM providers. One command.

Table of Contents

• Quickstart
• Why This Works
• The 18 Council Members
• Three Deliberation Modes
• Multi-Provider Auto-Routing
• Deliberation Protocol
• Installation
• Requirements
• Contributing
• Support the Project

Quickstart

Claude Code (plugin — recommended)

/plugin marketplace add 0xNyk/council-of-high-intelligence
/plugin install council@council-of-high-intelligence

Or via installer:

git clone https://github.com/0xNyk/council-of-high-intelligence.git
cd council-of-high-intelligence
./install.sh

Then in Claude Code:

/council Should we open-source our agent framework?
/council --quick Should we add caching here?
/council --duo Should we use microservices or monolith?

Codex

git clone https://github.com/0xNyk/council-of-high-intelligence.git
cd council-of-high-intelligence
./install.sh --codex

Gemini CLI

git clone https://github.com/0xNyk/council-of-high-intelligence.git
cd council-of-high-intelligence
./install.sh --gemini

The same /council commands work in all three hosts.

Why This Works

A single LLM gives you one reasoning path dressed up as confidence. Ask it a hard question and you get a fluent, structured, wrong answer. The council gives you structured disagreement instead:

• Get genuinely different perspectives — polarity pairs force real tension (Socrates destroys assumptions; Feynman rebuilds from first principles). Multi-provider routing spreads members across Claude, OpenAI, Gemini, and Ollama so you get actually different reasoning, not costume changes on one model
• Catch wrong questions early — the Problem Restate Gate makes every member reframe the question before analysis begins. If 3 members restate your question differently, the question was the problem
• Know what the council can't answer — verdicts lead with Unresolved Questions and Recommended Next Steps, not with confident-sounding consensus. What the council doesn't know matters more than where it agrees
• Prevent groupthink — dissent quotas, novelty gates, and counterfactual prompts enforce genuine disagreement. If >70% agree too early, two members are forced to steelman the opposing view

Why not just ask Claude directly? A single prompt gives you one model's confident best guess. The council gives you 3-18 independent analyses from different intellectual traditions, forces them to challenge each other's claims, and synthesizes a verdict that surfaces disagreement rather than hiding it. It's the difference between asking one advisor and convening a board.

The 18 Council Members