agentleFS
ForgeyClapForgeyClap/Forge-Core/.claude/skills/forge-council/SKILL.md

forge-council

Skill2 starsChanged 7 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use only on a councilTrigger FULL verdict: 5 independent advisors.

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use ONLY when councilTrigger() (forge-quality.cjs) says FULL: an explicit owner request for pushback, or high impact + high uncertainty.

    line 9
  2. Very specific:

    Step 0 — neutral framing: Write the decision question NEUTRALLY (no preferred direction, no "we lean towards X"): context, options, …

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Consensus is never proof: Every council decision that touches code still requires ordinary tests/measurements afterward.

    line 53

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

forge-council — LLM Council (FULL protocol)

Use ONLY when councilTrigger() (forge-quality.cjs) says FULL: an explicit owner request for pushback, or high impact + high uncertainty. Never by default, never on simple tasks — the expected information gain must outweigh latency, cost and context load. LIGHT exists as an outcome of the trigger but deliberately has NO protocol here yet: first a benchmark that proves its value (anti-overengineering); until then LIGHT falls back to one targeted second opinion.

Protocol (FULL)

Step 0 — neutral framing. Write the decision question NEUTRALLY (no preferred direction, no "we lean towards X"): context, options, criteria, hard limits. Compute context_hash = sha256 of that framing text (forge-quality.cjs::sha256). The framing is a run artifact.

Step 1 — 5 fresh, independent advisors, in parallel. Dispatch via the Agent tool (real subagents, one message with 5 parallel calls; NO simulated agents). Each advisor gets ONLY the neutral framing — no visibility of the others. The five fixed lenses:

  • Contrarian — attacks the most popular option; looks for what everyone is missing.
  • First Principles — reduces to fundamentals; ignores convention.
  • Expansionist — widens the option space; what if the question itself is too narrow?
  • Outsider — looks at it as an outsider/end user would; jargon-free.
  • Executor — judges feasibility, cost, risk, rollback.

Step 2 — anonymous peer review. Anonymize the five pieces of advice as A-E and send them back to each advisor (a second dispatch round): rank the other four and name the strongest critique of each. Anonymity prevents authority bias and self-preference.

Step 3 — chairman synthesis. The orchestrator (or a separate chairman dispatch) weighs the advice + peer rankings and writes the decision WITH an explicit minority report: dissenting opinions don't disappear, they're recorded alongside the reason.

Record. Fill in a CouncilDecisionRecord: council_id, context_hash, participants (role + runtime + dispatch_id from the REAL Agent dispatches + response_ref), responses, quorum, verdict, minority_report, status. Validate with validateCouncilRecord and persist via node .claude/forge-bin/forge-quality.cjs council-save <run_id> <record.json> — an invalid record is NOT written (the refusal with a reason is the honest result), and a council_id is never overwritten.

LIGHT candidate (recorded, NOT active)

The four-voice council of the pinned ECC toolkit (council skill, commit e2b8a51cea22) is recorded as the candidate LIGHT protocol. It stays inactive until a benchmark shows it changes decisions; until then LIGHT falls back to one targeted second opinion, as above. No step list is kept here on purpose.

Limits (permanent)

  • Validation is shape_only: runtime/dispatch_id are not cryptographically bound; real provenance requires the owner-gated gateway dispatch receipt (OWNER-GATED.md).
  • Consensus is never proof. Every council decision that touches code still requires ordinary tests/measurements afterward; the record points to them, never the other way round.
  • An INCOMPLETE quorum is honestly marked INCOMPLETE — never padded out.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.