召集四方视角进行结构化分歧讨论,辅助复杂决策与取舍判断。
复制安装指令,让 AI 自动完成配置 · 推荐新手
请帮我安装 askskill 上的 "council" 技能: 1. 下载 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/affaan-m/ECC/main/skills/council/SKILL.md 2. 保存为 ~/.claude/skills/council/SKILL.md 3. 装好后重载技能,告诉我可以用了
请启动一个四角色 council,评估“本周是否发布新推荐功能”。四个角色分别从用户价值、技术风险、业务影响、长期战略四个角度辩论,先列出支持与反对理由,再给出最终 go/no-go 建议和前提条件。
一份多视角决策分析,包含分歧点、主要风险、支持与反对意见,以及最终发布建议。
用 council 模式帮我比较“继续使用单体架构”与“拆分为微服务”两种方案。请安排四个声音分别关注交付速度、系统稳定性、团队协作成本、未来扩展性,进行结构化辩论并给出推荐方案。
清晰的方案对比结论,说明每种路径的利弊、适用条件与推荐选择。
请召开一个四方 council,判断“这个内容增长项目是否值得继续投入下季度预算”。四个角色请分别代表增长负责人、财务负责人、执行团队、用户研究视角,输出争议点、核心证据和最终建议。
一份针对继续、调整或终止项目的结构化判断,帮助快速做预算决策。
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]
…
为 Quarkus 项目执行发布前验证闭环,涵盖构建、测试、扫描与差异审查。
聚合多家大模型进行复核、仲裁与共识判断,辅助更可靠决策。