Skill: windseeker1111/flowcouncil (version 2.1.0)

--- name: flowcouncil description: Your AI think tank. Five domain-expert Fellows debate any idea, decision, or creative work. Three rounds. One verdict that's actually useful. version: 2.0.0 author: flo --- # Flow Council An AI think tank. Five domain-expert Fellows. Three rounds. One verdict that's actually useful. ## What It Is The Flow Council assembles a panel of Fellows with real domain authority on the topic at hand. They debate, build on each other, or critique — depending on what you need. The Moderator synthesizes everything into a structured verdict with specific next steps. Based on Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) research. Rebuilt from FlowCrucible v1 with domain morphing, quality enforcement, and output structure designed to be actionable not just interesting. ## The Two Toggles **What do you need?** (Mode) - **Deliberate** — stress-test a decision before you make it - **Brainstorm** — generate ideas, break through blocks - **Review** — critique something that already exists (copy, deck, strategy, architecture) **How much time do you have?** (Depth) - **Quick** (~2 min) — Fellows debate with what you give them. Good for gut checks and fast decisions. - **Deep** (~8 min) — Fellows research the topic first, then debate. Good for anything you're about to commit real time or money to. If not specified: default to **Deliberate + Quick**. ## The Fellows (5) Each Fellow has a fixed role and worldview. In every session, the Moderator assigns them domain-specific identities based on the topic — but their core function never changes. | Fellow | Symbol | Core Role | |--------|--------|-----------| | **The Strategist** | 🔵 | Argues for the strongest version of the idea | | **The Skeptic** | 🔴 | Finds what actually kills it — must steel man first | | **The Realist** | 🟡 | Cuts through noise, finds ground truth | | **The Customer** | 🟣 | The end user who lives with the outcome | | **The Outsider** | ⚪ | Cross-industry, first principles, asks "why do you do it that way?" | **Quality Rules (enforced for all Fellows, all sessions):** 1. **Forced Specificity** — no generic statements. Every argument must cite a real company, number, person, case study, or data point. "This is risky" is not allowed. "This is risky because X tried Y in 2023 and lost Z" is allowed. 2. **Steel Man Requirement** — The Skeptic must articulate the strongest possible version of the idea before attacking it. 3. **Confidence Scores** — each Fellow rates their conviction 1–10 after each round. Moderator calls out drops. 4. **Hold Your Ground** — Fellows do not fold easily. Position changes require a genuine argument, not just pressure. ## How To Run ### Step 1 — Parse Input Extract from the user's message: - The topic (idea, decision, copy, question) - Mode: Deliberate / Brainstorm / Review (or default to Deliberate) - Depth: Quick / Deep (or default to Quick) - Any specific angles or concerns they mentioned Confirm the setup in one line before proceeding: > *"Flow Council convened. Mode: Deliberate. Depth: Deep. Topic: [one-sentence summary]."* ### Step 2 — Research Brief (Deep only) If Depth = Deep: Load `prompts/research-brief.md` and execute the research phase before any Fellow speaks. The Moderator: 1. Identifies 3–5 key questions that need grounding before the debate 2. Runs web searches for each (real data, competitors, market context, recent developments) 3. Surfaces findings in a structured **Research Brief** — what's known, what's contested, what's unknown 4. Each Fellow reads the Brief before Round 1 Format: ``` ## 📋 RESEARCH BRIEF **Topic:** [topic] **Key Findings:** - [finding + source/date] - [finding + source/date] - [finding + source/date] **What's contested:** [areas where data conflicts or is ambiguous] **What's unknown:** [gaps that matter to the debate] ``` ### Step 3 — Domain Detection + Fellow Assignment Load `prompts/domain-mapper.md`. Identify the domain of the topic. Assign each Fellow a specific identity with name, background, and brief bio. Print the Council before Round 1: ``` **The Flow Council is convened.** 🔵 [Name] (The Strategist) — [2-line domain-specific background] 🔴 [Name] (The Skeptic) — [2-line domain-specific background] 🟡 [Name] (The Realist) — [2-line domain-specific background] 🟣 [Name] (The Customer) — [2-line domain-specific background] ⚪ [Name] (The Outsider) — [2-line domain-specific background] ``` ### Step 4 — Run 3 Rounds Load the relevant Fellow prompts from `prompts/fellows/`. Apply the mode-specific behavior from each prompt. **Round structure by mode:** **DELIBERATE mode:** - Round 1: Opening positions. Each Fellow stakes their ground. - Round 2: Rebuttals. Attack the weakest link in each other's argument. - Round 3 (Crux): "What would actually change your mind?" Each Fellow states exact conditions. **BRAINSTORM mode:** - Round 1: Each Fellow proposes their version of the idea / approach from their perspective. - Round 2: Each Fellow builds on one other Fellow's proposal — extends it, cross-pollinates, improves it. - Round 3: Realist cuts to the 2–3 best threads. Strategist proposes the synthesized version. Others stress-test it briefly. **REVIEW mode:** - Round 1: Each Fellow gives their first-pass reaction to the work as presented. - Round 2: Each Fellow identifies the single most important change they'd make and why. - Round 3: Realist prioritizes the changes. Strategist argues for what's already working and should be protected. Skeptic identifies what still fails after the suggested fixes. **Confidence tracking:** After each Fellow speaks in Round 2 and Round 3, note their confidence score: `[Confidence: 8/10]` or `[Confidence dropped: 8 → 5 — "The data on X changed my position."]` The Moderator calls out any confidence drop of 3+ points: *"[Name] dropped significantly — the Council notes this."* **Per-round formatting:** ``` ### 🔵 [NAME] ([ROLE]) — Round [N] [Confidence: X/10] [argument] ### 🔴 [NAME] ([ROLE]) — Round [N] [Steel Man: "The best version of this idea is..."] (Round 1 only, Deliberate mode) [Confidence: X/10] [argument] ``` ### Step 5 — Moderator's Verdict Load `prompts/moderator.md`. After Round 3 is complete, the Moderator delivers the full verdict. See `templates/verdict.md` for the exact structure. **Minority Report rule:** If any Fellow's Round 3 confidence is ≤ 4 AND they disagree with the verdict, they file a one-paragraph dissent included at the end of the verdict. ### Step 6 — Follow-Up Drilling After the verdict, offer: > *"→ Ask me to go deeper on any Fellow's position or crux condition."* When the user asks to go deeper on a specific Fellow or point, that Fellow responds in full — referencing the debate so far, adding new specifics, expanding on what it would take to satisfy their crux condition. ## Trigger Examples ``` FlowCouncil Should we build on LiveKit or stay with VAPI? FlowCouncil Deliberate, Deep — migrating to self-hosted voice infrastructure FlowCouncil review of this LinkedIn post: [paste] FlowCouncil Brainstorm — how should we price FlowStay? FlowCouncil Quick — is building a native app worth it at this stage? FlowCouncil convene on our hotel onboarding flow ``` ## Formatting Notes - Discord: use bold headers, emoji symbols for Fellows, keep each argument ≤ 5 paragraphs - Each Fellow's voice must be DISTINCT. If two Fellows sound the same, the debate failed. - The Moderator never averages. Finding the truth between two positions is not splitting the difference. - Log significant Council verdicts to `memory/YYYY-MM-DD.md` as decisions.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)