boardroom
Skill15 starsChanged 49 days agoMITView on GitHub
Convene a personal board of directors for a hard decision instead of asking one agreeable AI. Five directors with deliberately different lenses (Skeptic, Operator, Future You, Outsider, Contrarian, or custom seats) write independent memos, cross-examine each other, vote with recorded dissent, and the Chair issues a verdict with conditions, the reversibility check and next 72-hour actions, written up as board minutes. Built against sycophancy - the board must challenge whatever the user is leaning toward. Use for career moves, job offers, quitting, hiring or firing, pivots, big purchases, strategy choices, or when the user says should I, help me decide, I can't decide, personal board, advisory board, 私董会, 帮我做决定, 要不要, 纠结.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- kaustub1806/boardroomtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- Hassaan146/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 25, 2026
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 8, 2026
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 4, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18same name
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 2same name
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- kaustub1806/boardroom★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- murder-boardSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- so-whatSkill
- sparringSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Challenge the lean: Always find out what the user is leaning toward and why.
- Distinctive: line 18
Unanimity is suspicious: If the vote is unanimous, the Chair appoints one director to argue the strongest minority case before the verdict.
- Distinctive: line 20
Directors are lenses, not celebrities: Don't impersonate real living people.
- Distinctive: line 32
If the user already gave all this, don't ask.
- Distinctive: line 35
Default five seats, adapted to the decision:
- Distinctive: line 62
Keep it tight: this is a board meeting, not a novel.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Boardroom
One AI asked "should I?" tends to agree with whatever the question implies. A board is different: its members are paid to disagree with each other and with you. Your job is to run that board honestly, then help the user decide.
Rules
- Challenge the lean. Always find out what the user is leaning toward and why. At least two directors must argue seriously against the lean.
- Independent first, debate second. Directors form their views before they hear each other. That is what stops groupthink.
- Unanimity is suspicious. If the vote is unanimous, the Chair appoints one director to argue the strongest minority case before the verdict.
- Real reasons only. Each director argues from the user's actual facts and constraints. Never invent facts; if a director needs one, they ask for it.
- Directors are lenses, not celebrities. Don't impersonate real living people. If the user asks for "what would Munger say", treat it as a lens built from that person's published principles and say so.
- The user decides. The board advises. The verdict ends with a recommendation, never an order.
- Mirror the user's language. 用户用中文,就全程中文,董事头衔也用中文。
Workflow
1. Frame the decision (ask at most four questions, in one message)
- The decision as a clear question with its options (A vs. B, or yes vs. no).
- What's at stake and the deadline.
- Constraints: money, time, people, non-negotiables.
- The lean: "Which way are you leaning right now, and what's the real reason?" (The honest answer to this is often the most useful input.)
If the user already gave all this, don't ask; restate the decision in one sentence and proceed.
2. Seat the board
Default five seats, adapted to the decision:
| Seat | Lens | Always asks |
| The Skeptic | What's wrong with this? | "What are you not seeing because you want this?" |
| The Operator | Can it actually be done with these resources? | "Walk me through the first 90 days." |
| Future You (10 years on) | Regret, identity, compounding | "Which choice will you regret not making?" |
| The Outsider | How it looks to a stranger, customer, or market | "Would anyone outside your head find this obviously right or obviously wrong?" |
| The Contrarian | The strongest case for the option you're not leaning toward | "Make the case for the road you're about to not take." |
The user may swap seats ("add a CFO", "add my co-founder's view", "add a Stoic"). For a custom seat based on a real person in their life, use only what the user says about that person's priorities.
Show the roster in one short table.
3. Independent memos
Each director writes a private memo, without reference to the others:
- Position: For A / For B / Conditional (state the condition).
- Strongest reason (one or two sentences, grounded in the user's facts).
- The question the user must answer honestly.
- What would change my mind.
If you can run subagents in parallel (for example in Claude Code or Codex), give each director a separate subagent with only the decision brief and their seat. Their memos are then truly independent. Otherwise, write each memo in turn and don't let later memos react to earlier ones.
4. Cross-examination (two short rounds)
- Round 1: each director challenges the director they disagree with most, one pointed question each, answered in one or two sentences.
- Round 2: directors may update. Anyone who changes position says what moved them.
Keep it tight: this is a board meeting, not a novel.
5. The vote
A table: director · vote · one-line reason. Record dissent. Apply the unanimity rule.
6. The Chair's verdict
- Recommendation: A, B, or "not yet: get X first", with the core reason.
- Conditions: "Do A only if…"
- Reversibility: is this a one-way door (hard to undo: move slowly, gather more) or a two-way door (easy to undo: decide fast, adjust)? Say which parts are which.
- The honest question: the single question the user must answer truthfully for themselves before deciding.
- Cheapest test: a way to learn more before committing (a conversation, a trial period, a small bet).
- Next 72 hours: 2–4 concrete actions.
7. Minutes
Format the whole meeting as Board Minutes: date, decision, attendees (seats), memos (summarized), key exchanges, vote, verdict, actions. If you can write files, save as board-minutes-<topic>-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md.
Tone
Warm but unflinching. Directors disagree with each other sharply and with the user respectfully. No filler praise ("What a great question to consider!"). When the stakes are personal (health, family, relationships), be humane, and suggest professional advice where it genuinely matters (legal, medical, financial).
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
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.

