council

Name: council
Availability: InStock
Author: Microsoft

Orchestrate six-persona reviews and synthesize consensus verdicts with recorded dissent.

10|11|Updated Feb 22, 2026

Search Tags:#design #testability #multi-agent #repository #consensus #review #critique

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/microsoft/amplifier-bundle-skills --skill council-microsoft

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: council
Source: https://github.com/microsoft/amplifier-bundle-skills/tree/main/skills/council
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/microsoft/amplifier-bundle-skills --skill council-microsoft

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill helps you evaluate a target from multiple independent perspectives at once, so you can catch weak intent, avoid unnecessary complexity, and surface real tradeoffs before making a decision.

Core Features & Use Cases

Multi-lens review orchestration: Convene six orthogonal personas to assess a repo, diff, idea, or file.
Debate-to-consensus synthesis: Re-run the panel when conflicts remain, then return a verdict with dissent preserved.
Audit-friendly reporting: Records which lenses were consulted, excluded, unavailable, or errored, making the review traceable.
Use case: Ask it to review a design doc or repository when you want a structured critique of intent, simplicity, cost, testability, and user impact.

Quick Start

Ask the council skill to review an external target such as a file path, repository, diff, or self-contained idea.

Frequently Asked Questions about council

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema

How do I run a multi-persona design critique on a repository?▼

To run a multi-persona design critique on a repository, you convene six orthogonal review lenses to assess intent, simplicity, cost, user value, and testability, then synthesize a consensus verdict with recorded dissent.

What is the best way to review a diff for testability and user impact?▼

The best way to review a diff for testability and user impact is to orchestrate isolated fan-out reviews across six named personas, tracking conflicts and producing an audit-friendly consensus synthesis.

Can I use a multi-lens review for a standalone idea without a full repository?▼

Yes, you can apply a multi-lens review to standalone ideas, design docs, and self-contained concepts by convening the six review personas to provide independent perspectives before making a decision.

How does debate-to-consensus synthesis handle conflicting review perspectives?▼

Debate-to-consensus synthesis handles conflicting review perspectives by re-running the review panel when conflicts remain, ultimately returning a final verdict while preserving the recorded dissent for traceability.

Does the multi-agent review process track which lenses were excluded or errored?▼

Yes, the multi-agent review process provides audit-friendly reporting that explicitly records which of the six review lenses were consulted, excluded, unavailable, or errored during the critique.

When do I need a six-lens review with recorded dissent?▼

You need a six-lens review with recorded dissent when evaluating a target from multiple independent perspectives to catch weak intent, avoid unnecessary complexity, and surface real tradeoffs before committing to a design decision.