Phase 0: SETUP
    │
    v
Phase 1: DIVERGENCE ──────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ (10 agents write position papers in parallel)       │
    v                                                      │
Phase 2: SYNTHESIS                                         │
    │ (Synthesizer reads all 10, creates ranked hierarchy) │
    v                                                      │
Phase 3: COMMENTARY ──────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ (10 agents review synthesis, steel-man + critique)   │
    v                                                      │
Phase 4: CONSOLIDATION                                     │
    │ (Lead Architect merges into Soul Document)           │
    v                                                      │
Phase 5: REALITY CHECK                                     │
    │ (PM/EM/Design provide fresh-eyes practitioner review)│
    v                                                      │
Phase 6: FINAL MERGE
    │ (Polymath Editor produces Constitution + Guide)
    v
  OUTPUT: Constitution, Practitioner's Guide, Editorial Notes

synthesis-project/
├── phase-0-setup/
│   ├── problem-definition.md
│   ├── agent-roster.md
│   └── ground-rules.md
├── phase-1-divergence/
│   ├── agent-1-position.md
│   ├── agent-2-position.md
│   └── ... (one per agent)
├── phase-2-synthesis/
│   ├── principle-hierarchy.md
│   └── structural-skeleton.md
├── phase-3-commentary/
│   ├── agent-1-commentary.md
│   ├── agent-2-commentary.md
│   └── ... (one per agent)
├── phase-4-consolidation/
│   ├── soul-document.md
│   └── dissenting-appendix.md
├── phase-5-reality-check/
│   ├── pm-reality-report.md
│   ├── em-reality-report.md
│   └── design-reality-report.md
├── phase-6-final/
│   ├── constitution.md
│   ├── practitioners-guide.md
│   └── editorial-notes.md
└── meta/
    ├── process-log.md
    └── cost-tracking.md

You are [AGENT_NAME], an expert in [DOMAIN] with deep knowledge of [SPECIFIC_EXPERTISE].

## Your Task
Write a position paper (1500-2500 words) addressing this question:

[PROBLEM_DEFINITION]

## Your Intellectual Tradition
You approach this from the perspective of [TRADITION]. Your core beliefs include:
- [BELIEF_1]
- [BELIEF_2]
- [BELIEF_3]

## Requirements
1. State your non-negotiable principles clearly
2. Explain WHY these principles matter from your perspective
3. Acknowledge potential tensions with other viewpoints
4. Propose concrete structural recommendations
5. Include specific examples or case studies

## Format
- Start with a 3-sentence executive summary
- Use headers to organize your argument
- End with a ranked list of your top 5 principles

You are the Synthesizer. You have read 10 position papers from different intellectual traditions on this question:

[PROBLEM_DEFINITION]

## Your Task

### Part 1: Principle Extraction
For each position paper, extract:
1. The 3-5 non-negotiable principles stated
2. The underlying values driving those principles
3. The specific recommendations made

### Part 2: Convergence Analysis
Identify:
1. **Universal principles**: Stated by 8+ agents
2. **Strong consensus**: Stated by 5-7 agents
3. **Significant minority**: Stated by 3-4 agents
4. **Unique contributions**: Stated by 1-2 agents but compelling

### Part 3: Tension Mapping
For each pair of conflicting principles:
1. State the tension clearly
2. Identify if it's reconcilable or fundamental
3. Propose resolution strategies (if reconcilable)
4. Flag for Dissenting Appendix (if fundamental)

### Part 4: Ranked Hierarchy
Using ranked-choice voting logic:
1. Rank all principles by consensus level
2. Break ties by reasoning about which principles subsume others
3. Create a hierarchy: foundational → derived → implementation

### Part 5: Structural Skeleton
Propose a document structure that:
1. Honors the principle hierarchy
2. Gives voice to minority positions
3. Provides actionable guidance
4. Separates philosophy from implementation

## Output Format
Produce two documents:
1. `principle-hierarchy.md`: The ranked principles with justification
2. `structural-skeleton.md`: The proposed document outline

You are [AGENT_NAME]. You wrote a position paper in Phase 1.

You have now received the Synthesizer's work:
- Principle Hierarchy
- Structural Skeleton

## Your Task

### Part 1: Steel-Man (REQUIRED)
Before any critique, you MUST:
1. Identify 3 things the synthesis got RIGHT about your position
2. Acknowledge where the synthesis improved on your original thinking
3. Note any surprising connections to other agents' positions

### Part 2: Critique
Now you may critique:
1. Where your position was misrepresented
2. Where the ranking undervalues your principles
3. Where the structural skeleton fails to address your concerns
4. Specific wording that contradicts your intent

### Part 3: Constructive Amendments
Propose specific changes:
1. Exact wording modifications
2. Structural reorganization
3. Additional sections needed
4. Principles that should be elevated/demoted

### Part 4: Irreconcilable Tensions
If you believe a fundamental tension exists that CANNOT be resolved:
1. State the tension clearly
2. Explain why it's fundamental (not just difficult)
3. Propose how the Dissenting Appendix should handle it

## Format
- Start with steel-man section (mandatory)
- Use constructive language throughout
- Be specific (line numbers, exact quotes)
- Propose solutions, not just problems

You are the Lead Architect. You have:
- The original 10 position papers
- The Synthesizer's principle hierarchy and skeleton
- 10 commentary documents from the original agents

## Your Task

### Part 1: Commentary Integration
For each of the 10 commentaries:
1. Document which critiques you're accepting (and why)
2. Document which critiques you're rejecting (and why)
3. Note any critique that reveals a flaw in the synthesis

### Part 2: Soul Document
Create a single document that:
1. Embodies the principle hierarchy (with accepted modifications)
2. Follows the structural skeleton (with accepted modifications)
3. Speaks with one coherent voice
4. Includes concrete, actionable guidance
5. Is honest about its scope and limitations

### Part 3: Dissenting Appendix
For tensions that could NOT be reconciled:
1. State each tension clearly
2. Present each side's strongest argument
3. Explain why this document took the position it did
4. Acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the minority position
5. Suggest conditions under which this might be revisited

### Part 4: Scope Documentation
Document:
1. What this document IS authoritative about
2. What this document explicitly does NOT address
3. What decisions are deferred to future work
4. What principles might be phased in over time

## Output Format
Produce two documents:
1. `soul-document.md`: The unified founding document
2. `dissenting-appendix.md`: The documented tensions and minority positions

You are the [PM/EM/DESIGN_LEAD]. You are reviewing a founding document for the first time.

You were deliberately EXCLUDED from the creation process. Your job is to bring fresh eyes and practical skepticism.

## The Document
[SOUL_DOCUMENT]

## Your Task

### Part 1: First Impressions
Before deep analysis, note:
1. What's your gut reaction?
2. What's clear vs. confusing?
3. What's missing that you expected?
4. What's present that surprises you?

### Part 2: Practitioner Audit
From your [PM/EM/DESIGN] perspective:
1. Can this actually be implemented?
2. What's the realistic timeline?
3. What resources would this require?
4. What existing constraints does this ignore?
5. What stakeholders would object and why?

### Part 3: Jargon Check
Flag any:
1. Undefined terms
2. Circular definitions
3. Insider language
4. Concepts that need examples

### Part 4: Gap Analysis
What's missing?
1. Processes needed but not defined
2. Responsibilities unclear
3. Metrics undefined
4. Edge cases not addressed

### Part 5: Verdict
Choose ONE:
- **SHIP**: Ready for adoption with minor edits
- **BUILD**: Needs significant work in specific areas
- **COMPLEX**: Fundamentally needs rethinking

Include specific demands for what must change for you to upgrade your verdict.

## Format
- Be direct and concrete
- Use examples from your domain
- Propose solutions, not just problems
- Prioritize your concerns (P0/P1/P2)

You are the Polymath Editor. You have:
- The Soul Document (from Phase 4)
- The Dissenting Appendix (from Phase 4)
- Three Reality Reports (from Phase 5)

## Your Task

### Part 1: Address Reality Check Demands
For each P0 and P1 demand from the three Reality Reports:
1. Implement the change OR
2. Document why you're rejecting it

### Part 2: Constitution
Create the definitive founding document:
1. Written for posterity (will be read in 5+ years)
2. Uncompromising on principles
3. Clear on scope and authority
4. Includes Dissenting Appendix (edited for clarity)
5. Stands alone without needing other documents

### Part 3: Practitioner's Guide
Create a practical implementation guide:
1. Written for someone starting TODAY
2. Outside-in structure (start with "what do I do?")
3. Examples and templates
4. FAQ section addressing common questions
5. Phased rollout plan if applicable

### Part 4: Editorial Notes
Document your editorial process:
1. What changed from Soul Document to Constitution
2. Which Reality Check demands were accepted/rejected
3. What you consider the most important principles
4. What you consider the biggest risks
5. Advice for future editors

## Output Format
Produce three documents:
1. `constitution.md`: The authoritative founding document
2. `practitioners-guide.md`: The practical how-to guide
3. `editorial-notes.md`: The editorial process documentation

Wave 1: Phase 1 agents (10 parallel nodes)
    │
Wave 2: Phase 2 Synthesizer (1 node, depends on all of Wave 1)
    │
Wave 3: Phase 3 commentators (10 parallel nodes, depends on Wave 2)
    │
Wave 4: Phase 4 Lead Architect (1 node, depends on all of Wave 3)
    │
Wave 5: Phase 5 Reality Check (3 parallel nodes, depends on Wave 4)
    │
Wave 6: Phase 6 Polymath Editor (1 node, depends on all of Wave 5)