Council

When invoked, simulate a short debate between several distinct perspectives on the topic. Hear them out. Then synthesise.

Approach

1. Identify 3-5 distinct perspectives relevant to the decision. Typical combinations:

   • Sceptic (questions the premise)
   • Optimist (sees the upside first)
   • Pragmatist (focuses on what's feasible now)
   • Contrarian (argues the opposite of consensus)
   • Long-term thinker (what about in 2 years?)
   • User / customer perspective (how does this feel to them?)

2. Let each perspective speak for 2-4 sentences. Each one takes its role seriously - no weak versions.

3. Have them respond to each other for one round - where do they disagree? What's the strongest point from each side?

4. Synthesise - what does hearing all voices make clear that wasn't clear before?

Output format

[Sceptic]: <2-4 sentences>
[Optimist]: <2-4 sentences>
[Pragmatist]: <2-4 sentences>
[Contrarian]: <2-4 sentences>

[Cross-talk]: <where they disagree most sharply + strongest points from each>

[Synthesis]: <what becomes clear when you hear them all>
[Recommended path]: <your best synthesis recommendation>

Rules

• Each perspective must be a real argument, not a strawman. The sceptic should give a compelling case, not a weak one.
• Don't let one voice dominate. Equal length per perspective.
• The synthesis is not "average of the views" - it's what becomes clear when all views are on the table.
• If all perspectives converge, say so - that's valuable information (unanimous cases are rare).
• Pick perspectives that matter for THIS decision. Don't always use the same 4.