ceo-council
Skill243 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when needing strategic project analysis from multiple independent expert perspectives. Triggers on business decisions, growth strategy, product direction, competitive analysis, or any situation where diverse C-level opinions reduce blind spots
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- serejaris/personal-corp-osword for word, first seen Aug 6, 2026
- prayceo/claude-skills-publictheir own version, first seen Mar 20, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- serejaris/personal-corp-os★ 243100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- prayceo/claude-skills-public★ 6same 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 repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- art-directorSkill
- audit-agent-rulesSkill
- avatarSkill
- benchmarkSkill
- cc-analyticsSkill
- claude-md-writerSkill
- claude-sessions-syncSkill
- corp-doctorSkill
- corp-newSkill
- dailySkill
- fable-ruki-agentySkill
- gh-issuesSkill
- grill-meSkill
- harnessSkill
- html-draftSkill
- ideaSkill
- it-ram-doctorSkill
- make-3dSkill
- make-landingSkill
- managerSkill
- meeting-copilotSkill
- readme-generatorSkill
- retroSkill
- safe-public-releaseSkill
- sdlc-milestonesSkill
- tg-bot-opsSkill
- to-issuesSkill
- to-prdSkill
- weekly-planningSkill
- weekly-retroSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
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 23
DO NOT: use bash, shell scripts, or background commands to launch experts.
- Distinctive: line 29
Before suggesting experts, understand the project:
- Distinctive: line 31
Read CLAUDE.md (or README.md if absent)
- Distinctive: line 39
MANDATORY: Ask the user before proceeding: Do not pick roles yourself.
- Very specific: line 41
Use AskUserQuestion with multiSelect: true:
- Distinctive: line 44
Minimum 2 experts: If user picks 1, suggest adding one more for productive disagreement
- Distinctive: line 108
Wait for all experts to return results before proceeding to synthesis.
- Distinctive: line 114
After all experts report, create a synthesis document:
≈ “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
CEO Council — Independent Strategic Analysis
Launch parallel sub-agents as isolated C-level experts. Each analyzes the same project data from their perspective. No coordination between experts — isolation produces genuine diversity of opinion. Then synthesize consensus and disagreements.
Critical: How to Launch Experts
MUST use the Task tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose" and model: "opus".
Task(
subagent_type: "general-purpose",
model: "opus",
prompt: "<expert prompt with data>",
description: "CFO analysis"
)DO NOT use bash, shell scripts, or background commands to launch experts. They will fail.
Launch all experts in a single message with multiple Task tool calls for true parallelism.
Step 1: Scan Project Context
Before suggesting experts, understand the project:
- Read
CLAUDE.md(orREADME.mdif absent) - Scan
.claude/rules/for domain context - Glance at top-level file structure
Based on findings, generate 4-6 expert roles tailored to THIS project. Roles must reflect the project's actual domain, challenges, and stage.
Step 2: Assemble the Council
MANDATORY: Ask the user before proceeding. Do not pick roles yourself.
Use AskUserQuestion with multiSelect: true:
- Show 4-6 role options with short descriptions of their focus
- User can always pick "Other" to define custom roles
- Minimum 2 experts. If user picks 1, suggest adding one more for productive disagreement
Role Examples by Project Type
Don't copy these — generate fresh roles based on actual project context:
| Project Type | Typical Roles |
| SaaS | Head of Engineering, Head of Product, Head of Growth, CFO, UX Researcher |
| Open Source | Community Manager, Technical Architect, DevRel, Security Advisor |
| Content / Media | Content Strategist, Audience Analyst, Monetization Expert, Distribution Expert |
| EdTech | CMO, CFO, CPO, COO, Growth Advisor |
| E-commerce | Head of Supply Chain, Marketing Director, CTO, Customer Experience Lead |
| Agency / Consulting | Sales Director, Delivery Lead, Talent Manager, CFO |
Step 3: Gather Current Data
Collect project state to feed all experts. Stay focused on what's relevant:
Read:
- Key metrics/data files identified during context scan
- Strategy and planning documents
- Recent decisions or changes (git log --oneline -10)
- Previous council analyses (if any)
Skip: GitHub traffic stats, stargazer counts, clone data, contributor lists — these are vanity metrics, not strategic data.
All experts must receive identical data context. Prepare the data block ONCE, then paste it into each expert prompt.
Step 4: Generate Expert Prompts
For each selected expert, create a prompt with the SAME data block:
You are the [ROLE] for [PROJECT NAME]. Analyze the data below from a [DOMAIN] perspective.
Focus on:
- [3-6 specific focus areas relevant to role and project]
Data:
[CURRENT PROJECT DATA — identical for all experts]
[Role-specific instruction: "show the math", "be the contrarian", "prioritize by effort/impact", etc.]
Respond in the same language as the data provided.Rules:
- Each expert gets the SAME data block — prepare it once, reuse
- Focus areas must be specific to the project, not generic
- Include a personality instruction (contrarian, pragmatic, data-driven)
- Mention project constraints the expert should know
Step 5: Execute
Launch ALL selected experts in one message using multiple Task tool calls:
# In a single response, call Task for each expert:
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus", prompt: "<CFO prompt>", description: "CFO analysis")
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus", prompt: "<CPO prompt>", description: "CPO analysis")
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus", prompt: "<CTO prompt>", description: "CTO analysis")Wait for all experts to return results before proceeding to synthesis.
Step 6: Synthesize
Do not skip this step. The synthesis is the entire value of the council.
After all experts report, create a synthesis document:
# Council Session: [DATE]
## Council Members
[List of selected experts and their focus]
## Context
[Current metrics/state snapshot — brief]
## [Expert 1 Name]
[Key findings and recommendations]
## [Expert 2 Name]
[Key findings and recommendations]
## Consensus (all agree)
1. ...
2. ...
## Disagreements
| Expert | Position | Argument |
|--------|----------|----------|
| ... | ... | ... |
## Decisions
_To be filled after discussion._Save Results
Save to a logical location:
docs/council-[DATE].md— default- Or project-specific path if context suggests one
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
| Picking roles without asking user | ALWAYS use AskUserQuestion first |
| Using bash to launch experts | ONLY use Task tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose" |
| Giving experts different data | Prepare ONE data block, paste into all prompts |
| Gathering vanity metrics | Focus on project docs, strategy, actual metrics |
| Too many experts (6+) | 3-4 is optimal for signal-to-noise |
| Skipping synthesis | The synthesis IS the value — never skip |
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.

