llm-council
Skill367 starsChanged 58 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a pr-council-review (PR or branch mode) result needs independent corroboration from a different model family before trusting a GREEN verdict — high-stakes, security-sensitive, or architecturally significant reviews where same-model-family Claude subagents might share a blind spot. Also use when the user asks for "external", "second opinion", "cross-model", or names codex/antigravity (`agy`) or another external CLI coding agent alongside a review.
52 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- harshitsinghbhandari/domain-expansiontheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Pawan028/llm-counciltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- yusuf787x/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ataidecarlos/agentictheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ton-anywhere/my-favorite-promptstheir own version, first seen Oct 21, 2026
- Tyrusrechs11/llm-council-skilltheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use graphify, premortem and 9 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
IgorGanapolskySkillgraphify
Query the local Graphify-Labs AST knowledge graph for ThumbGate architecture questions (what connects X to Y, explain a symbol, PreToolUse/gates/adapters). Slash: /graphify.
Also in 6 projects that use this
neurofooSkillpremortem
Pre-mortem analysis that imagines a plan has failed, then works backward to identify causes and preventions. Use before launches, major decisions, or risky initiatives to surface hidden risks.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnasX7Skillbrandkit
Premium brand-kit image generation skill for creating high-end brand-guidelines boards, logo systems, identity decks, and visual-world presentations. Trained for minimalist, cinematic, editorial, dark-tech, luxury, cultural, security, gaming, developer-tool, and consumer-app brand systems. Optimized for intentional logo concepting, refined composition, sparse typography, strong symbolic meaning, premium mockups, art-directed imagery, and flexible grid layouts.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnasX7Skillminimalist-ui
Clean editorial-style interfaces. Warm monochrome palette, typographic contrast, flat bento grids, muted pastels. No gradients, no heavy shadows.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillhumanizer
Tone enforcement patterns for external-facing community responses
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillskill-creator
Create new agent skills following the Agent Skills specification. Use when asked to "create a skill", "add a new skill", "write a skill", "make a skill", "build a skill", or scaffold a new skill with SKILL.md. Guides through requirements, writing, registration, and verification.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +1 more from AnasX7
Other versions52 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 52
- rohitg00/pro-workflow★ 2.9ksame name
- aiwithremy/claude-skills-llm-council★ 1.8ksame name
- am-will/codex-skills★ 1ksame name
- gcpdev/llm-council-skill★ 428same name
- happycapy-ai/Happycapy-skills★ 137same name
- nicmarti/skills-weaver★ 30same name
- oliwoodman/llm-council-skill★ 25same name
- gestordeaudiencia/llm-council-skill-ptbr★ 20same name
- am-will/llm-council★ 16same name
- justinjohnson25600/hermes_skills★ 14same name
42 more not listed
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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- llms.txtllms.txt
- changelogSkill
- checkSkill
- doc-reviewSkill
- gflow-cliSkill
- issue-assessmentSkill
- issue-resolveSkill
- known-issuesSkill
- live-verifySkill
- planSkill
- pr-council-reviewSkill
- predictSkill
- releaseSkill
- scenarioSkill
- sonarSkill
- spikeSkill
- statusSkill
- video-productionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 47 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 15
Not needed for a quick spot-check or draft iteration — use /review (single-agent) for that.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 47 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
llm-council — external-tools review layer
Overview
Wraps pr-council-review (unchanged) and adds a layer of external CLI coding agents (codex, plus Antigravity — the agy harness) as additional independent reviewers, then folds their verdicts into the same synthesis. Internal Claude subagents are independent per-dimension but share one model family's blind spots — a phrasing choice, a Windows-vs-POSIX nuance, or a syntax error that reads fine to one Claude reviewer reads fine to all of them. A different model family catches a different error distribution. Confirmed live: on one review, external tools caught 6 real, distinct issues (a wording-accuracy bug, a wrong test count, a Windows-only test-triviality nuance, a test-isolation gap, a missing test, a malformed markdown fence) that 12 internal Claude-subagent dispatches (6 dimensions × 2 rounds) had all missed.
When to Use
- Any
pr-council-reviewrun (PR# mode or branch mode) where the artifact is high-stakes enough to want a second, differently-biased opinion before calling it GREEN. - Not needed for a quick spot-check or draft iteration — use
/review(single-agent) for that;pr-council-reviewalone for a normal-stakes PR.
Quick Reference — Tiers
| Tier | Internal (pr-council-review) | External tools |
small (default) | ✅ full dimension council | none — identical to running pr-council-review directly |
medium | ✅ | codex |
high | ✅ | codex + Antigravity (agy) |
Tier controls tool breadth, not review rounds. Fix → re-verify → repeat until GREEN (or a round cap) happens at every tier — that's how council review works, not a tier knob.
Tool Registry
Fixed, tested invocation recipes. Do not improvise a command for a listed tool — the "obvious" invocation is often a trap (see codex below).
codex
- NEVER
codex review. Its built-in prompt has gotten stuck in a self-inflicted loop reading skill files via a malformed PowerShell command, then retrying the identical broken command for 20+ minutes with zero progress. Confirmed reproducible on a clean retry. - Use:
codex exec -s read-only -C <absolute-repo-dir> --skip-git-repo-check "<direct, fully self-contained prompt>". - Probe:
codex --version(near-instant; confirms binary health only, not auth/quota). - Timeout budget: real calls run 10-20 min at default (
xhigh) reasoning effort. Always background it — never block synchronously. - Orphan risk: a killed/timed-out
codex execcan leavecodex.exe/codex-code-mode-host.exe/ sandbox-helper processes running on Windows. After any kill, verify viatasklist/psthat the named PIDs are actually gone before retrying — a retry racing an orphan still writing the same output path silently corrupts the result.
Antigravity (agy)
- What it is: Google's Antigravity harness, invoked via
agy. It supplies thehigh-tier's second, different-model-family opinion. - Working recipe (verified 2026-08-27):
agy --model <model> --mode plan --dangerously-skip-permissions --add-dir <absolute-repo-dir> --print-timeout 15m -p "<prompt>".--mode planis what makes the permission flag acceptable: the agent gets reads, not writes. Verify the worktree is unmodified afterwards (git status) — on the run that produced this note, it was. - Do NOT use
--agent <gsd-*> --new-project. That was the previous recipe and it terminates with a bareError: Agent execution terminated due to error.— this was misdiagnosed here as quota exhaustion for months. - Probe:
agy models— notagy --version. The version check only proves the binary exists;agy modelsexercises auth and returns the model list (Gemini 3.x Pro/Flash, Claude, GPT-OSS), which is what you actually need to know. - The failure mode is permissions, not quota. Headless mode cannot prompt, so tool requests are auto-denied and the run returns no output at all:
a tool required the "command" permission that headless mode cannot prompt for, so it was auto-denied. Three separate runs failed three different ways before this surfaced; each error named the next problem, so read the actual message rather than assuming quota. - If it's genuinely unavailable: don't silently retry past its probe. Suggest installing it, or substitute another external CLI coding agent, and continue best-effort with whatever did return; never block the whole round on it. Note that the
geminiCLI is not a valid substitute for individual accounts — it now returnsIneligibleTierError: This client is no longer supported for Gemini Code Assist for individuals, and it fails that way after passing a--versionprobe.
Dispatch Flow
- Resolve tier → tool list.
- Probe every resolved tool in parallel, short timeout (~10-15s). A tool that doesn't respond is excluded from this round — name it in the report, don't just drop it silently. The probe only catches binary-health failures (not installed, hung shell); a quota-exhausted tool can still pass the probe and fail on the real call — that's what the dispatch-layer disclosure step below is for.
- Dispatch
pr-council-review(unchanged) for the internal dimension council. - In parallel, dispatch each surviving external tool via its registry recipe, backgrounded.
- Fold each returning verdict into the same synthesis table
pr-council-reviewproduces — same GREEN/YELLOW/RED vocabulary, tagged by source (e.g.D3 (internal)vscodex (external)). A tool that fails or times out after passing its probe is dropped from this round with an explicit note in the report. Never silently drop, never block the whole round on one flaky tool. - Any finding — internal or external — that warrants a fix gets applied, then re-verified against the specific dimension/tool that flagged it (not necessarily the whole pool again).
- Report:
pr-council-review's existing shape, plus an "External tools" line noting which ran / were skipped / failed and why.
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
Running codex review because it sounds like the obvious subcommand for a review task | Use codex exec -s read-only -C <dir> --skip-git-repo-check "<prompt>" — see registry |
| Dispatching the real (slow) external call before probing | Probe first, short timeout — a dead tool costs 10-20 min discovered late vs. ~15s discovered early |
| Treating one failed external tool as a reason to abandon the whole external layer | Best-effort: drop that tool for this round, disclose it, keep going with whatever did return |
| Blocking synchronously on an external tool call | Always background it — internal dimensions and other external tools shouldn't wait |
| Retrying a timed-out tool without checking for orphaned processes first | tasklist/ps check + explicit kill before any retry against the same output path |
Silently downgrading to codex-only when agy is unavailable | Disclose the drop and suggest installing Antigravity or substituting another external CLI agent — don't hide the reduced coverage |
Cross-References
REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: the internal council dispatch is pr-council-review (skills/pr-council-review/SKILL.md) — this skill does not reimplement dimension detection, synthesis rules, or report shape, it wraps them.
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.

