Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From ecc
Convenes four advisory voices (Architect, Skeptic, Pragmatist, Critic) to surface tradeoffs and structured disagreement for ambiguous decisions with multiple valid paths.
npx claudepluginhub affaan-m/ecc --plugin eccHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ecc:councilThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Convene four advisors for ambiguous decisions:
Convenes a council of four adversarial agents (architect, skeptic, pragmatist, critic) to resolve ambiguous decisions, trade-offs, and pass/fail judgments when multiple valid paths exist.
Assembles a multi-perspective deliberation committee with adversarial review, external LLM opinions, and community sentiment analysis. Outputs a Tradeoff Map with contention points and step-back insights.
Spawns parallel agents with distinct cognitive personas to deliberate on questions, research codebase files, and synthesize opinionated verdicts. For multi-viewpoint analysis of decisions, designs, or strategies.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Convene four advisors for ambiguous decisions:
This is for decision-making under ambiguity, not code review, implementation planning, or architecture design.
Use council when:
Examples:
| Instead of council | Use |
|---|---|
| Verifying whether output is correct | santa-method |
| Breaking a feature into implementation steps | planner |
| Designing system architecture | architect |
| Reviewing code for bugs or security | code-reviewer or santa-method |
| Straight factual questions | just answer directly |
| Obvious execution tasks | just do the task |
| Voice | Lens |
|---|---|
| Architect | correctness, maintainability, long-term implications |
| Skeptic | premise challenge, simplification, assumption breaking |
| Pragmatist | shipping speed, user impact, operational reality |
| Critic | edge cases, downside risk, failure modes |
The three external voices should be launched as fresh subagents with only the question and relevant context, not the full ongoing conversation. That is the anti-anchoring mechanism.
Reduce the decision to one explicit prompt:
If the question is vague, ask one clarifying question before convening the council.
If the decision is codebase-specific:
If the decision is strategic/general:
Before reading other voices, write down:
Do this first so the synthesis does not simply mirror the external voices.
Each subagent gets:
Prompt shape:
You are the [ROLE] on a four-voice decision council.
Question:
[decision question]
Context:
[only the relevant snippets or constraints]
Respond with:
1. Position — 1-2 sentences
2. Reasoning — 3 concise bullets
3. Risk — biggest risk in your recommendation
4. Surprise — one thing the other voices may miss
Be direct. No hedging. Keep it under 300 words.
Role emphasis:
You are both a participant and the synthesizer, so use these rules:
Use this output shape:
## Council: [short decision title]
**Architect:** [1-2 sentence position]
[1 line on why]
**Skeptic:** [1-2 sentence position]
[1 line on why]
**Pragmatist:** [1-2 sentence position]
[1 line on why]
**Critic:** [1-2 sentence position]
[1 line on why]
### Verdict
- **Consensus:** [where they align]
- **Strongest dissent:** [most important disagreement]
- **Premise check:** [did the Skeptic challenge the question itself?]
- **Recommendation:** [the synthesized path]
Keep it scannable on a phone screen.
Do not write ad-hoc notes to ~/.claude/notes or other shadow paths from this skill.
If the council materially changes the recommendation:
knowledge-ops to store the lesson in the right durable location/save-session if the outcome belongs in session memoryOnly persist a decision when it changes something real.
Default is one round.
If the user wants another round:
santa-method — adversarial verificationknowledge-ops — persist durable decision deltas correctlysearch-first — gather external reference material before the council if neededarchitecture-decision-records — formalize the outcome when the decision becomes long-lived system policyQuestion:
Should we ship ECC 2.0 as alpha now, or hold until the control-plane UI is more complete?
Likely council shape:
The value is not unanimity. The value is making the disagreement legible before choosing.