Use this skill to coordinate multiple subagents investigating the same question, with different models first and different assigned perspectives second, then synthesize their reports into one recommendation.

This skill is best for judgment-heavy tasks: architecture tradeoffs, risky bug fixes, code review red-teaming, rollout decisions, incident analysis, and “is this alternative worth pursuing?” questions.

State the decision the council should answer in one sentence. Identify:

If the user’s request is ambiguous, ask only the minimum clarification needed. Otherwise choose sensible defaults and proceed.

Prioritize model diversity. A council should not default to three agents on the same model with different angles; use that only when the available launch configuration cannot provide multiple useful models, or when the user explicitly asks for one model. If model diversity is unavailable, say so briefly before falling back to perspective-only diversity.

Preferred default roster for a three-member council:

If one of these exact models is unavailable in the active harness, use the closest available model from that family and note the substitution. If no open-source model is available, use a third distinct frontier model if possible; otherwise use the strongest remaining model with a deliberately adversarial or specialist angle.

Assign both a model and an angle to each member. Avoid making the angles redundant with the models; for example, do not ask all members to do general architecture review. Useful angle combinations include:

When different children need different models, launch them in separate calls because model selection is run-wide. If the requested model resolves differently than expected, treat the resolved launch settings as authoritative and continue unless they make the task infeasible.

When using non-default harnesses, choose valid model IDs for that harness. For example, Claude Code may expose , Codex may expose , and open-source models depend on the currently configured local or remote provider. Do not invent unsupported model IDs; if a desired model is not available, select the closest supported substitute and preserve the intended angle diversity.

For read-only investigations, keep all children in the same checkout and explicitly tell them not to edit files. For implementation or prototyping councils, give each local child its own git worktree and branch so they cannot collide.

For explicit orchestration requests, briefly tell the user which council members you plan to launch and what each will investigate, then wait for approval before calling .

The shared brief should include:

Keep launch prompts short enough that task titles stay compact. If a long brief causes launch validation issues, launch with a minimal prompt and send the full brief to the child agents immediately afterward.

Ask every council member to return:

Encourage independence. Do not share one child’s findings with the others unless you are intentionally doing a second-round critique.

Read completion messages as they arrive. Do not rely on lifecycle success alone; the useful output is in the child’s report.

If a report is missing key evidence or makes an unsupported claim, send a focused follow-up question to that same child rather than launching a replacement. Reuse existing children for follow-ups because they retain context.

Compare the reports by evidence quality, not by vote count. In the final answer:

Prefer a concise decision memo over a transcript summary. The user needs the distilled recommendation, not every intermediate detail.

Use this shape unless the task calls for something different:

undefined

[One or two sentences with the decision.]

[Concrete next step: merge current change, pursue alternative, hybrid, run tests, etc.]

undefined