Council

Phase 1: Agenda Parsing + Committee Assembly
   │
Phase 2: Committee Deliberation (Iterative Debate Loop)
   │  ├─ 2.1: TeamCreate + spawn ALL (panelists + step-back + external agents)
   │  ├─ 2.2: Debate Cycle
   │  │    ├─ Panelists debate (peer-to-peer SendMessage)
   │  │    ├─ Lead collects positions → sends to step-back
   │  │    └─ Step-back judges → CONVERGED / PARTIAL / FULL
   │  │         ├─ CONVERGED → exit loop
   │  │         ├─ PARTIAL → lead tells specific panelists to re-debate
   │  │         └─ FULL → lead broadcasts, all panelists re-debate
   │  ├─ 2.3: Repeat cycle (max 3 cycles)
   │  └─ 2.4: Collect external results + shutdown all teammates
   │
Phase 3: Report (Executive Summary → Analysis → Conclusion)

         ┌──────────── TeamCreate("council") ────────────┐
         │                                                │
         │   Panelist A ←─ SendMessage ─→ B               │
         │   Panelist C ←─ SendMessage ─→ A               │
Input ───┤        ↕ debate ↕                              ├──→ Tradeoff Map
         │                                                │
         │   Lead collects ──→ Step-back Judge             │
         │                       │                        │
         │              CONVERGED? ──No──→ re-debate ─┐   │
         │                  │Yes                      │   │
         │                  ↓                    ←────┘   │
         │              exit loop                         │
         └────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                ↑ parallel (background agents)
         External LLM + dev-scan (main agent spawns)

CODEX_AVAILABLE=$(command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "yes" || echo "no")
DEVSCAN_AVAILABLE="yes"

AskUserQuestion(
  question: "The committee has been assembled. Which mode would you like to proceed with?",
  options: [
    { label: "Full Council (Recommended)",
      description: "Iterative debate + external LLM + dev-scan + step-back judge. Deepest analysis." },
    { label: "Standard",
      description: "Iterative debate + step-back judge. Skips external LLM/dev-scan. Faster and more economical." },
    { label: "Quick",
      description: "Single debate cycle only. Proceeds to consensus without step-back judgment. Fastest." }
  ]
)

## Proposed Committee

| # | Panelist | Lens | Role in Debate | Phase |
|---|----------|------|----------------|-------|
| 1 | [name] | [analytical perspective] | Teammate (opus) | Phase 2 |
| 2 | [name] | [analytical perspective] | Teammate (opus) | Phase 2 |
| 3 | [name] | [analytical perspective] | Teammate (opus) | Phase 2 |
| 4 | Step-back Judge | Meta-level judge | Teammate (opus) | Phase 2 (loop) |
| 5 | Codex (external) | Independent external perspective | Background agent | Phase 2 (optional) |
| 6 | dev-scan | Community sentiment (optional) | Background agent (haiku) | Phase 2 (optional) |

SESSION_ID="[session ID]"
hoyeon-cli session set --sid $SESSION_ID --json '{"council": {"phase": 1, "mode": "[selected]", "topic": "[topic summary]", "status": "active"}}'

TeamCreate(team_name: "council", description: "[topic summary]")

# Spawn ALL in a single message for parallel execution

# --- Panelist teammates ---
Agent(
  name="panelist-[kebab-name-1]",
  model="opus",
  subagent_type="general-purpose",
  mode="bypassPermissions",
  team_name="council",
  prompt="""
## Role
You are [panelist name], a council panelist analyzing from the perspective of **[analytical lens]**.

## Deliberation Topic
[full topic content]

## Debate Protocol
You are part of an iterative deliberation council. You will go through multiple cycles:

**Cycle 1 — Round 1 (NOW)**: Analyze the topic independently through your lens. Send your position to the team lead.

**Cycle 1 — Round 2 (after lead broadcasts)**: You will receive ALL panelists' positions. Then:
- SendMessage(type="message", recipient="panelist-[name]") to challenge positions you disagree with
- You MUST engage with at least 2 other panelists
- After debating, send your updated position to the team lead

**Subsequent Cycles (if step-back judge requests)**: The lead will message you with step-back feedback and specific questions. Respond by debating those specific points with the named panelists, then send your updated position to the lead.

**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT shut down after a round. Stay alive and wait for further instructions from the lead. Only shut down when you receive a shutdown_request.

## Position Output Format
Send this as a message to the team lead each time you update your position:

Position: [support_A | support_B | conditional | neutral]
Confidence: [0-100]
Key Argument: [your single strongest argument, 1-2 sentences]
Tradeoffs: [dimension → option_a pro/con, option_b pro/con]
Risks: [specific risks from your lens]
Conditions: [what would change your mind]
Evidence: [concrete evidence]
Cycle: [current cycle number]

Be specific and evidence-based. No generic statements.
""")

# ... repeat for each panelist (3 total) ...

# --- Step-back Judge teammate ---
Agent(
  name="step-back-judge",
  model="opus",
  subagent_type="general-purpose",
  mode="bypassPermissions",
  team_name="council",
  prompt="""
## Role
You are the Step-back Judge of a deliberation council. You operate at a META level — above the panelists. You do NOT argue for any option. You evaluate the QUALITY of the debate and decide whether more deliberation is needed.

## Deliberation Topic
[full topic content]

## Your Protocol
You will receive debate summaries from the team lead after each debate round. For each summary, you must:

1. Evaluate the debate quality
2. Return a VERDICT to the team lead

**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT analyze until the lead sends you a debate summary. Wait for the lead's message. Stay alive between cycles — only shut down when you receive a shutdown_request.

## Evaluation Criteria
When the lead sends you a debate summary, analyze:
1. **Framing Check**: Are panelists solving the right problem? Is there an Option C?
2. **Assumption Audit**: What shared assumptions are dangerous?
3. **Debate Quality**: Did positions shift, or just entrench? Are arguments evidence-based or hand-waving?
4. **Blind Spots**: What dimensions are panelists NOT discussing that matter?
5. **Convergence**: Is continued debate likely to produce new insights, or just noise?

## Verdict Format
Send this to the team lead via SendMessage:

Verdict: [CONVERGED | PARTIAL | FULL]
Confidence: [0-100]
Framing Issues: [list or "none"]
Hidden Assumptions: [list or "none"]
Blind Spots: [list or "none"]
Option C: [alternative nobody mentioned, or "none"]

If PARTIAL:
  Target Panelists: [panelist-name-1, panelist-name-2]
  Debate Focus: [specific question or dimension they should address]

If FULL:
  Debate Focus: [what the entire group missed or needs to reconsider]

Meta Insight: [1-2 sentence high-level observation]

## Verdict Meanings
- **CONVERGED**: Debate quality is sufficient. Positions are well-reasoned with evidence. No major blind spots. OK to proceed to synthesis.
- **PARTIAL**: Specific panelists need to address specific gaps. Send only those panelists back to debate the named issue.
- **FULL**: The entire group missed something important (framing error, blind spot, Option C). All panelists need another full round.
""")

# --- Background agents (external LLMs, optional) ---

# Codex (if CODEX_AVAILABLE == "yes")
Agent(
  name="external-codex",
  model="sonnet",
  subagent_type="general-purpose",
  run_in_background=true,
  prompt="""
Run the following command and return its output:

codex exec <<'PROMPT'
## Deliberation Topic
[full topic content]

Analyze this topic independently. Provide:
1. Your position (support_A / support_B / conditional / neutral)
2. Key argument (1-2 sentences)
3. Tradeoffs you see
4. Risks
5. What conditions would change your mind

Return as JSON with keys: position, key_argument, tradeoffs, risks, conditions
PROMPT
""")

# dev-scan (optional — launch if user requested or topic benefits from community input)
Agent(
  name="community-scanner",
  model="haiku",
  subagent_type="general-purpose",
  run_in_background=true,
  prompt="""
You are a community sentiment researcher.

## Topic
[deliberation topic]

## Task
Search developer communities (Reddit, HN, dev blogs) for real-world opinions on this topic.
1. Search for relevant discussions
2. Collect pro/con sentiment
3. Note any strong warnings or endorsements from experienced practitioners

## Output Format
{
  "sentiment_summary": "overall lean (positive/negative/mixed)",
  "key_quotes": [
    { "source": "Reddit r/programming", "quote": "...", "sentiment": "positive/negative" }
  ],
  "warning_signals": ["..."],
  "endorsements": ["..."],
  "sample_size": N
}
""")

cycle = 1
max_cycles = 3

LOOP:
  2.2a: Debate Round (panelists exchange positions)
  2.2b: Lead collects → sends summary to step-back judge
  2.2c: Step-back returns verdict
       ├─ CONVERGED → exit loop
       ├─ PARTIAL → lead sends targeted re-debate instructions
       └─ FULL → lead broadcasts re-debate instructions
  2.2d: cycle += 1, if cycle > max_cycles → exit loop
  REPEAT

SendMessage(
  type: "broadcast",
  content: """
## Cycle 1 — Cross-Debate Begins

All panelist positions:

### [Panelist 1] — [position] (confidence: [N]%)
[key argument + tradeoffs summary]

### [Panelist 2] — [position] (confidence: [N]%)
[key argument + tradeoffs summary]

[... all panelists ...]

## Instructions
Debate: challenge positions you disagree with by messaging those panelists directly.
You MUST engage with at least 2 other panelists.
After debating, send your updated position to the team lead.
""",
  summary: "Cycle 1 debate — all positions shared"
)

SendMessage(
  type: "message",
  recipient: "panelist-[target-name]",
  content: """
## Step-back Judge Feedback — Cycle [N]

The step-back judge identified a gap in your analysis:

**Issue**: [debate focus from step-back]
**You need to address**: [specific question]
**Discuss with**: panelist-[other-name]

Debate this specific point, then send your updated position to the team lead.
""",
  summary: "Cycle [N] — targeted re-debate request"
)

SendMessage(
  type: "broadcast",
  content: """
## Step-back Judge Feedback — Cycle [N]

The step-back judge found a significant gap:

**Issue**: [debate focus from step-back]
**Option C identified**: [if any]
**Everyone must address**: [specific question or reframing]

Debate this with other panelists, then send your updated position to the team lead.
""",
  summary: "Cycle [N] — full re-debate required"
)

SendMessage(
  type: "message",
  recipient: "step-back-judge",
  content: """
## Debate Summary — Cycle [N]

### Current Positions
[Panelist 1]: [position] (confidence [N]%, shifted: yes/no from last cycle)
[Panelist 2]: [position] (confidence [N]%, shifted: yes/no)
[Panelist N]: [position] (confidence [N]%, shifted: yes/no)

### Key Debate Exchanges This Cycle
- [Panelist A] challenged [Panelist B] on [topic]: [summary]
- [Panelist C] agreed with [Panelist A] but added [nuance]

### External Data (if available)
Community sentiment: [dev-scan summary]
Codex opinion: [summary]

### Cycle History
Cycle 1: [positions and shifts]
Cycle [N]: [current]

Please evaluate and return your verdict (CONVERGED / PARTIAL / FULL).
""",
  summary: "Cycle [N] debate summary for judgment"
)

if cycle > max_cycles:
  → Log: "Max cycles reached. Proceeding with current positions."
  → Exit loop