council

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.