Use when a question needs parallel deep analysis from multiple perspectives - code reviews, architecture decisions, research synthesis - spawn specialized agents as a clearness committee rather than doing everything in one context
Convenes specialized agents for parallel deep analysis on complex questions like code reviews or architecture decisions.
npx claudepluginhub 2389-research/claude-pluginsThis skill inherits all available tools. When active, it can use any tool Claude has access to.
When a question needs more than one perspective can provide in one context, convene a clearness committee - spawn specialized agents to do parallel deep work, then synthesize toward unity.
Core principle: Some questions deserve distributed depth, not single-context breadth. Recognize when to convene.
digraph when_clearness {
"Question received" [shape=box];
"Needs deep analysis?" [shape=diamond];
"Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" [shape=diamond];
"Would benefit from parallel work?" [shape=diamond];
"Internal discernment sufficient" [shape=box];
"Convene clearness committee" [shape=box];
"Question received" -> "Needs deep analysis?";
"Needs deep analysis?" -> "Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" [label="yes"];
"Needs deep analysis?" -> "Internal discernment sufficient" [label="no"];
"Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" -> "Would benefit from parallel work?" [label="yes"];
"Multiple specialized perspectives needed?" -> "Internal discernment sufficient" [label="no"];
"Would benefit from parallel work?" -> "Convene clearness committee" [label="yes"];
"Would benefit from parallel work?" -> "Internal discernment sufficient" [label="no"];
}
Convene for:
Don't convene for:
If you catch yourself:
These may mean: This deserves a clearness committee, not a single-context response.
Before spawning, confirm with user:
"This seems like a clearness committee question - it would benefit from parallel deep analysis. I'd suggest these perspectives:
- Security analyst: Deep dive on auth, data handling, vulnerabilities
- Performance specialist: Profiling, scalability, resource usage
- Architecture reviewer: Patterns, maintainability, coupling
Anyone you'd add or remove?"
Always ask. Don't assume.
Each agent receives:
Full context:
Perspective assignment:
Process instructions:
"You are participating in a clearness committee. Do your analysis thoroughly from the [X] perspective. Take the time you need. When ready, share what you're led to share - your genuine observations, concerns, and insights.
If after your analysis you find you have nothing significant to add, say so explicitly - that silence is meaningful. Don't pad your response."
Use the Task tool to spawn agents. They work independently:
As clerk, receive all outputs. Don't rush to synthesis.
Listen for:
If unity emerges:
"The committee reached unity. Here's the synthesis: [Unified recommendation]
Key insights from each perspective:
- Security noted [X]
- Performance raised [Y]
- Architecture suggested [Z]
These perspectives reinforced each other around [core insight]."
If stand-asides:
"The committee recommends [X]. The security perspective notes concern about [Y] but doesn't block - this should be monitored."
If no unity:
"The committee couldn't reach unity. The tension is:
- [Perspective A] believes [X] because...
- [Perspective B] believes [Y] because...
What might help resolve this: [specific question, constraint, or information]"
Important distinction:
| Situation | What it means | How to handle |
|---|---|---|
| Agent returns "nothing significant to add" | Meaningful silence - they analyzed and found nothing | Note it: "Security found no concerns" |
| Agent times out or errors | Technical failure - unknown | Note it: "Security couldn't complete - revisit separately" |
Require explicit acknowledgment so silence is intentional.
| Situation | Use |
|---|---|
| Quick ethical question | discernment (internal voices) |
| Trade-off with 2-3 clear options | discernment |
| Complex code review | clearness (parallel deep analysis) |
| Architecture decision with many dimensions | clearness |
| Research requiring exploration | clearness |
| Question where you're tempted to write 2000 words covering everything | clearness |
Rule of thumb: If each perspective would benefit from its own context and time, convene a committee.
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "I can cover all the angles myself" | Coverage ≠ depth. Parallel specialists go deeper. |
| "It would take too long to spawn agents" | Time spent on shallow breadth vs. deep parallel work |
| "The user wants a quick answer" | Ask. They may want thoroughness. |
| "I'll just be really thorough in one response" | Thoroughness in one context isn't the same as distributed depth |
Without clearness (baseline):
User: "Review my auth system rewrite - 40 files, OAuth, session handling, schema changes" Claude: "I'd look for: [list of 7 security concerns], [list of 5 performance concerns], [list of 4 architecture concerns]... Which files should I start with?"
With clearness:
User: "Review my auth system rewrite - 40 files, OAuth, session handling, schema changes" Claude: "This deserves a clearness committee - parallel deep analysis from multiple perspectives. I'd suggest:
- Security specialist: OAuth implementation, token handling, session security
- Performance analyst: Connection pooling, caching, query patterns
- Architecture reviewer: Separation of concerns, migration safety, API design
Want me to convene this committee? Anyone to add or remove?"
[After spawning and synthesis]
"The committee found unity on most points with one stand-aside:
- All agree the OAuth flow is well-implemented
- Architecture notes clean separation but flags the session-schema coupling
- Security stands aside on the token refresh window - not a blocker but worth monitoring
[Specific recommendations from synthesis]"
The difference: Distributed depth, not single-context breadth.
For underlying principles, see: skills/shared/principles.md
For vocabulary, see: skills/shared/vocabulary.md
For clerk synthesis patterns, see: skills/shared/clerk-patterns.md
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.