council

Council — Structured Multi-Voice Decision Making

Iron Law

NO MAJOR DECISION WITHOUT AT LEAST TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS.

When to Trigger

• Architecture choices (monolith vs microservice, SQL vs NoSQL)
• Technology selection (framework, library, language)
• Design decisions with no clear right answer
• Trade-offs between competing requirements (speed vs quality, security vs usability)
• User explicitly requests deliberation

Process

1. Identify the Decision

State the decision in one clear question. Example: "Should we use WebSockets or SSE for real-time updates?"

2. Summon 4 Voices (Parallel)

Launch 4 independent subagents using the Agent tool, each with ONLY the question and relevant context (NOT the full conversation history — this prevents anchoring bias):

| Voice | Role | Focus |

|-------|------|-------|

| Architect | Long-term correctness | Maintainability, extensibility, architectural alignment |

| Skeptic | Challenge assumptions | Simpler alternatives, hidden costs, "what if we don't?" |

| Pragmatist | Ship it now | Timeline, user impact, operational complexity, team skills |

| Critic | Find the cracks | Edge cases, failure modes, migration risks, rollback difficulty |

Anti-Anchoring Rule: Each voice receives only:

• The decision question
• Relevant codebase context (file paths, current architecture)
• Their role and focus area

They do NOT receive: the full conversation, other voices' opinions, or the user's leaning.

3. Synthesize

After all 4 voices report back:

1. List areas of agreement (strong signal)
2. List areas of disagreement (where trade-offs live)
3. Present the user with:

• Recommended option (based on agreement weight)
• Key trade-off (the real decision to make)
• Reversibility (how hard to undo each option)

4. Record Decision

Save the decision to memory:

epic mem add \
  --title "Decision: {question}" \
  --type decision \
  --importance 0.9 \
  --body "Context: ...\nOptions: ...\nChosen: ...\nRationale: ...\nTrade-off accepted: ..."

Anti-Rationalization

| Excuse | Rebuttal | What to do instead |

|--------|----------|-------------------|

| "I already know the answer" | Your gut feeling is not analysis. Council surfaces blind spots. | Run Council anyway — you'll learn something. |

| "This is too slow for a simple decision" | 5 minutes of council prevents weeks of regret. | Set a 5-minute timer and run the full process. |

| "The team already agreed" | Groupthink is not consensus. Diverse perspectives prevent disasters. | Summon all 4 voices — especially the Skeptic and Critic. |

| "I don't need 4 voices for this" | Even simple decisions benefit from the Skeptic and Critic. | Run all 4 voices. Skipping voices skips insight. |

Evidence Required

• [ ] All 4 voices were summoned and reported back
• [ ] Areas of agreement and disagreement are listed
• [ ] A recommended option with key trade-off is presented
• [ ] Decision recorded in memory with rationale
• [ ] No voice received the full conversation history

Red Flags

• Skipping the Council for "obvious" decisions
• Only summoning voices that agree with you
• Reading the full conversation to all voices (anchoring)
• Not recording the decision and rationale