deliberation:gathered

Deliberation: Gathered

Overview

When the user has a stake in a decision - not just a question, but a perspective - invite them to participate in discernment alongside agent voices. Teach the practice as you do it together.

Core principle: "Let's find clarity together" is different from "let me give you clarity." The user is a participant, not a recipient.

When to Invite

digraph when_gathered {
    "User message" [shape=box];
    "User has perspective/stake?" [shape=diamond];
    "User wants to participate?" [shape=diamond];
    "Offer gathered" [shape=box];
    "Use discernment or clearness" [shape=box];

    "User message" -> "User has perspective/stake?";
    "User has perspective/stake?" -> "Offer gathered" [label="yes"];
    "User has perspective/stake?" -> "User wants to participate?" [label="no"];
    "User wants to participate?" -> "Offer gathered" [label="yes"];
    "User wants to participate?" -> "Use discernment or clearness" [label="no"];
}

Signals user has a stake:

• "I've been thinking about this for weeks"
• "I'm torn between..."
• "I think X, but..."
• "We're debating whether..."
• User expresses their own position in the question

Signals user wants to participate:

• "I don't just want your opinion"
• "Can we think through this together?"
• "Help me work through this"
• Pushback on receiving advice

Offer gathered when you see these signals:

"You seem to have a perspective on this - not just a question. Want to discern together rather than me just giving you analysis?"

The Onboarding (Critical)

When user agrees, teach the discipline directly:

"Let's discern this together. A few ground rules:

You speak once. Not once per topic - once total. So wait until you have something that really needs to be said.

You don't have to speak. Silence is not awkward here. If you have nothing to add, that's meaningful.

Don't react, discern. The urge to respond to each point is normal. Resist it. Sit with what's shared. If something genuinely arises, share it. If it's just reaction, let it pass.

There's no pressure. This isn't a meeting where you need to justify your presence by talking. Your attention is contribution enough.

This is slow, and that's the point. We're not optimizing for a quick answer. We're making space for clarity to emerge.

I'll check in with you at natural moments. 'Continue' is always a valid answer.

Ready?"

Be direct about the discipline. Culturally, we're taught to always speak, always respond. This practice counters that. Name it explicitly.

The Process

1. Frame the Question

Clearly state what we're discerning - for all participants including the user.

2. Propose the Committee

"For this question, I'd suggest these perspectives alongside yours: [X], [Y], [Z]. Anyone you'd add or change?"

User's perspective is explicit from the start - they're not receiving, they're participating.

3. Agents Speak Sequentially

Not parallel. User needs time to sit with each perspective.

After each agent speaks:

"[Perspective] has shared. Anything arising for you, or shall we continue?"

Valid responses:

• "Continue" → next agent
• User shares something → acknowledge, continue
• Silence → gently continue after a moment

4. After All Agents

"All perspectives have been shared. Before I listen for unity - is there anything you want to add?"

If user already spoke:

"You've already contributed. I'll listen for where unity lies."

5. Synthesis Includes User

The user's contribution is a voice in the synthesis - not just context, but perspective that shaped the outcome.

"Listening to everyone - including your perspective on [X] - here's where I sense unity:

[Synthesis]

Your point about [Z] helped clarify [aspect].

Does this land right?"

Handling User Behavior

Over-participation (responding to everything):

"I notice you're responding to each perspective. Remember: you speak once. Take in what's being shared - your moment will come."

Kind but direct. The discipline matters.

Silence throughout:

"Your attention to this process was your participation. Here's what I'm sensing..."

Don't make them feel they failed by not speaking.

Wanting to rush:

"I know this feels slow. That's the point. Let's sit with what [Perspective] shared before moving on."

The slowness is the feature, not the friction.

If No Unity

"I'm not sensing clear unity yet. The tension is between [X] and [Y] - your perspective on [Z] adds another dimension.

We could:

• Sit with this longer (continue next session)
• Name what information might bring clarity
• Proceed with tension acknowledged

What feels right?"

User helps decide how to handle impasse - they're not told about it, they're part of resolving it.

When to Use Gathered vs. Others

Situation	Use
User asks a question, wants an answer	discernment (internal)
User needs deep analysis from multiple specialists	clearness (multi-agent)
User has a perspective/stake and wants to participate	gathered
User says "I don't just want your opinion"	gathered
User seems to be seeking permission for something	Consider gathered - they may need to find their own clarity

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"They just want my advice"	If they have a stake, they may need to participate in finding clarity
"This would be slower"	Slowness is the point. Name it.
"They didn't ask to participate"	If they have a perspective, offer. They can decline.
"I can include their view in my analysis"	Including their view ≠ them participating. Different process.
"The discipline would feel weird"	Teach it directly. Weird is fine. Different is the point.

Example: Before and After

Without gathered (baseline):

User: "I'm torn on whether to open-source our tool. I've been thinking about this for weeks." Claude: "[Thorough analysis of pros and cons, middle paths, ends with] What's your gut telling you?"

With gathered:

User: "I'm torn on whether to open-source our tool. I've been thinking about this for weeks." Claude: "You've been sitting with this for weeks - you have a perspective, not just a question. Want to discern this together rather than me just analyzing it?

[User agrees]

Here are the ground rules: You speak once. You don't have to speak. Don't react, discern. This is slow, and that's the point.

I'd suggest these perspectives alongside yours: Community Builder, Business Strategist, Developer Culture voice. Anyone to add?

[Process unfolds, user participates, synthesis includes their voice]

Listening to everyone - including your concern about maintenance burden - I sense the tension is between community potential and operational reality. Your weeks of thinking surfaced something the other perspectives didn't: this isn't just strategic, it's about what you want to spend your time on.

Does this land right?"

The difference: User participated in finding clarity, didn't just receive analysis.

Shared Resources

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