Claude Council Of Five

🏛️ Council of Five

**A Claude Code skill where five personas debate your decision — then a Chair delivers the verdict.**

Five thinking styles pound on an open-ended decision: a **Chair** who keeps their opinion sealed until the end, a **Devil's Advocate** who is forbidden to agree, a **Principles Purist** who digs to first principles, an **Outsider** with zero background knowledge, and an **Executor** who asks "so what do we do *today*?"

[한국어 안내는 아래에 ↓](#-한국어)

/council Should I raise my product's price from $1.90 to $2.90?

Why another debate skill?

Most multi-persona skills fail the same way: the personas read each other's opinions, converge on the first speaker, and the "debate" becomes theater. This skill borrows the structure of [Karpathy's llm-council](https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council) and the anti-groupthink devices of [agent-review-panel](https://github.com/wan-huiyan/agent-review-panel), and enforces **order over volume**:

flowchart LR
    P0["Phase 0
Chair reframes agenda,
declares conflicting criteria"] --> P1["Phase 1
4 independent drafts
(no cross-referencing)"]
    P1 --> P2["Phase 2
Anonymized cross-examination
(Opinion A/B/C/D, 1–2 rounds)"]
    P2 --> P3["Phase 3
Blind scoring
(never score your own)"]
    P3 --> P4["Phase 4
Chair's verdict + minority report
+ do-today list"]

What makes it different from the existing council skills:

• The Outsider persona. Every other council is staffed entirely by experts — so nobody questions the premises the experts share. The Outsider knows nothing about the field, is banned from jargon, and is the only one allowed to ask "why is that obvious?" They routinely score highest.
• A sycophancy detector. Changing position requires stating what new evidence caused it. Cave without grounds and the Chair puts it on the record.
• Unanimity is suspected, not celebrated. When consensus forms, the Devil's Advocate is obligated t