magi

MAGI — Three-Persona Deliberation

Convene the three MAGI supercomputers to rule on a proposal — a design, a plan, an architecture decision, a PR, or any judgment call passed in. Each unit evaluates from its own lens, casts a vote, and the MAGI reach a verdict by consensus or majority. A tie is a dramatic deadlock.

The three units (each is a subagent — dispatch via Task):

Unit	Persona (aspect)	Lens
Melchior-1	The Scientist	correctness, sound modeling, first-principles rigor
Balthasar-2	The Engineer (the Mother)	API design, extensibility, long-term maintainability (effort is free)
Casper-3	The User (the Woman)	real-world value, product coherence, honest scope, no gold-plating

Agent types: magi-melchior, magi-balthasar, magi-casper.

The proposal

Take the proposal from the invocation (/magi <proposal>, "MAGI, rule on X", or the surrounding context in autonomous work). Before dispatching, gather the relevant context the units need to judge — the design doc, the diff (git diff <base>...HEAD), the file paths, the stated goal. Pass that same context to all three so they judge the same artifact. If the proposal is ambiguous, state your one-line interpretation of it up front, then proceed.

Round 1 — independent positions (always)

Dispatch all three units in parallel — a single message with three Task calls, one per agent type. They must not see each other's positions; these are independent priors.

Each Task prompt contains:

• The proposal (verbatim or your crisp restatement).
• The context/artifact to judge (diff, doc, paths, goal).
• A reminder to return its output contract: a 2–5 sentence position from its lens, the merits and risks it sees, and a VOTE: APPROVE | REJECT | CONDITIONAL (with specific flip-conditions if CONDITIONAL).

Collect the three positions and their initial votes.

If Round 1 is unanimous (all APPROVE, or all REJECT), skip Round 2 — the priors already agree. Go straight to the verdict.

Round 2 — cross-examination (only if Round 1 is not unanimous)

Now let the units see each other. Dispatch the three in parallel again, giving each unit the other two's Round 1 positions and votes, and asking it to reconsider and cast a FINAL vote. Each may hold or change its vote, but must give a one-line reason for holding or moving. A CONDITIONAL vote should restate its conditions (or drop them if the cross-examination resolved them).

Stay in-lens: a unit updates because another surfaced something within its own lens it had missed — not because it was outvoted. Peer pressure is not evidence.

Tally + verdict

Compute the verdict from the final votes (Round 2 if it ran, else Round 1), treating CONDITIONAL as a conditional-APPROVE:

• UNANIMOUS APPROVE — all three APPROVE.
• MAJORITY APPROVE (2-1) — two APPROVE, one REJECT.
• CONDITIONAL — the approving majority includes ≥1 CONDITIONAL, or the swing vote is CONDITIONAL. Approve only if the union of all live conditions is met; list them.
• DEADLOCK — the votes tie with no majority to approve (e.g. the decisive split cannot resolve). Eva-flavored: the MAGI cannot reach consensus.
• REJECTED — a majority REJECT.

Presentation

Report a compact transcript — a short header per unit with its final position and vote — then the verdict line. MAGI-terminal aesthetic is welcome; keep the ASCII light.

╔════════════════════════════════════════╗
║  MAGI  ·  DELIBERATION  ·  <proposal>  ║
╚════════════════════════════════════════╝

── MELCHIOR-1 · The Scientist ──────────
<final position, 1–2 lines>            VOTE: APPROVE

── BALTHASAR-2 · The Engineer ──────────
<final position, 1–2 lines>            VOTE: CONDITIONAL

── CASPER-3 · The User ─────────────────
<final position, 1–2 lines>            VOTE: APPROVE

────────────────────────────────────────
VERDICT: CONDITIONAL APPROVE (2 APPROVE · 1 CONDITIONAL)
Conditions to satisfy:
  - <condition from Balthasar-2>

State the resulting decision in one line. If CONDITIONAL, list the exact conditions that would make it a clean APPROVE. If DEADLOCK, say so plainly and name the unresolved axis of disagreement.

Two modes of use

• Interactive — the user asked for a ruling. Present the transcript + verdict and stop. The decision is theirs to act on.
• Decision gate in autonomous work — the MAGI are a gate inside a larger task. Act on the verdict: proceed on APPROVE; proceed and satisfy the listed conditions on CONDITIONAL; stop and reconsider (or escalate) on REJECTED / DEADLOCK. Record the verdict briefly so the decision is traceable.

Rules

• Round 1 is always independent — never show the units each other before they cast initial votes.
• Only run Round 2 when Round 1 isn't unanimous; don't burn a round on agreement.
• Each unit stays strictly in its lens. Balthasar never weighs effort/time/cost. Casper guards scope against gold-plating. Melchior judges only correctness.
• CONDITIONAL must carry concrete, checkable conditions — never a vague "maybe".
• Keep the transcript crisp: one short header + position + vote per unit, then the verdict. Don't re-narrate each round in full.