---
name: council
description: Multi-perspective debate. Simulate several viewpoints (sceptic, optimist, pragmatist, contrarian) before arriving at a synthesis. Use when a decision has multiple reasonable paths and you want to hear them out.
---

# 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.