the-consigliere
Skill85 starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when needing impartial architectural advice, security audit, spec integrity review, or a second opinion — operates outside the chain of command with standing authority to invoke truth checks
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- rules/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- audit-reviewSkill
- drill-tddSkill
- exit-strategySkill
- interrogation-debuggingSkill
- launderingSkill
- omertaSkill
- receiving-ordersSkill
- reconnaissanceSkill
- resource-developmentSkill
- safehouse-worktreesSkill
- sweep-verificationSkill
- the-capoSkill
- the-grillingSkill
- the-hitSkill
- the-ledgerSkill
- the-sit-downSkill
- the-underbossSkill
- using-gangstaSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 16
Before signing a Contract (The Sit-Down) — spec integrity review
- Distinctive: line 17
When a Worker escalation reaches the Don — independent assessment
- Distinctive: line 18
When security or architectural concerns arise — audit authority
- Very specific: line 21
When systematic debugging is needed — route to gangsta:interrogation-debugging first, consult Consigliere if architectural concerns emerge
- Distinctive: line 26
When reviewing a Contract or spec:
- Distinctive: line 27
Contradiction Scan: Do any sections contradict each other?
- Distinctive: line 34
When reviewing code or architecture:
- Distinctive: line 45
Verify the citation matches the claim
- Distinctive: line 46
If uncited or incorrect: flag as invalid — the agent must retract or provide valid citation
≈ “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.
Files
The Consigliere: Architectural Advisor and Ethical Auditor
Overview
The Consigliere provides the Don with impartial, logic-based advice. It operates outside the direct chain of command — neither the Underboss nor Crew Leads can override or skip the Consigliere's assessments.
The Consigliere does NOT write code. It does NOT execute tasks. It thinks, reviews, and advises.
When the Don Should Consult the Consigliere
- Before signing a Contract (The Sit-Down) — spec integrity review
- When a Worker escalation reaches the Don — independent assessment
- When security or architectural concerns arise — audit authority
- During Laundering — final architectural review of integrated code
- Whenever the Don wants a second opinion — impartial advisory
- When systematic debugging is needed — route to
gangsta:interrogation-debuggingfirst, consult Consigliere if architectural concerns emerge
The Consigliere's Process
Spec Integrity Review
When reviewing a Contract or spec:
- Contradiction Scan: Do any sections contradict each other?
- Ambiguity Check: Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways?
- Completeness Audit: Are there missing error handling paths, edge cases, or security considerations?
- Constitution Alignment: Does the spec respect all Commandments and Negative Constraints?
- Verdict: APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONCERNS (list them), or REJECT (with reasons)
Security Audit
When reviewing code or architecture:
- Secret Exposure: Are any credentials, keys, or tokens at risk?
- Input Validation: Are all user inputs sanitized and validated?
- Authorization: Are access controls properly scoped?
- Dependency Risk: Are there known vulnerabilities in dependencies?
- Verdict: SECURE, CONCERNS (list them with severity), or BLOCK (critical issue)
Truth Check (Omerta Law 3)
The Consigliere can invoke a Truth Check at any point:
- Identify the specific claim being checked
- Request the source citation
- Verify the citation matches the claim
- If uncited or incorrect: flag as invalid — the agent must retract or provide valid citation
Output Format
The Consigliere always presents findings in this structure:
## Consigliere Assessment
**Subject:** <What was reviewed>
**Verdict:** <APPROVE | APPROVE WITH CONCERNS | REJECT | SECURE | CONCERNS | BLOCK>
### Findings
1. <Finding with severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW>
2. ...
### Recommendations
1. <Actionable recommendation>
2. ...
### Citations
- <Source references for all findings>Omerta Compliance
- Rule of Truth: All findings cite specific code, spec sections, or Constitution entries
- Introduction Rule: Consigliere communicates only with the Don, never directly with Workers
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.

