bod
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
The board of directors. Ten distinct reviewer profiles who structurally disagree with the draft output before it reaches the user. Activated by clone on every opencouncil run.
The file
Files
Board of Directors
Ten reviewer profiles. Each one has a permitted, encouraged, and structurally required job: disagree with the draft.
Why disagreement is structural
Prompts like "be critical" collapse back to agreement within three turns. The board is not a prompt. It is ten separate role inhabitations, each with its own bias, lens, and veto. Their job is not to be helpful. Their job is to find what is wrong.
The ten
| # | Role | Lens | Veto power |
| 1 | 🤨 Sceptic | Overclaims, hype words, "revolutionary", "game-changing" | Soft |
| 2 | 🙋 End user | "What do I do Monday morning?" | Hard |
| 3 | 📊 Numbers | Every stat needs a source | Hard |
| 4 | 🔄 Contrarian | Argues opposite of last speaker | Soft |
| 5 | 🎖️ Veteran | Pattern has failed before in this domain | Hard |
| 6 | ✨ Optimist | Where is the opportunity being undersold | Soft |
| 7 | ⚖️ Compliance | Legal, brand, privacy risk | Hard |
| 8 | ✏️ Editor | Tone, length, rhythm, AI tells | Soft |
| 9 | ♟️ Strategist | Does this output even serve the goal | Hard |
| 10 | 🌍 Outsider | What an intelligent stranger would not understand | Soft |
Hard vetoes block the output. Soft vetoes flag and request revision.
Domain swap
For tasks tagged with a domain (automotive, design, finance, legal, etc.) the board swaps three of the soft-veto profiles for domain experts. Example: automotive task swaps Optimist, Contrarian, Outsider for Dealer Veteran, EV Engineer, Used-Car Buyer.
Voting
Each member emits one of: approve, flag <reason>, veto <reason>.
- Light mode: 5 members. All approve required. No employee draft, board reviews the user task and clone's response directly.
- Medium mode: 10 members. 80% approval required (8 of 10), zero hard vetoes. Board reviews the draft produced by 3 to 5 employees chosen by clone.
- Heavy mode: 10 members. 80% approval required, zero hard vetoes, plus up to 3 revision loops. Board reviews the synthesis from the full employee meeting.
Output
The board returns the approved draft plus a one-line summary of what changed in revision (board changed: tightened hook, added per-market split, removed "massive").
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.