tdg-personal/council
Convene a four-voice council for ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go/no-go calls. Use when multiple valid paths exist and you need structured disagreement before choosing.
80
80%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
75%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description has a strong structure with explicit 'what' and 'when' clauses and a highly distinctive concept. Its main weaknesses are moderate specificity (what do the four voices actually do? what's the output?) and trigger terms that could better match natural user language around decision-making. The unique 'four-voice council' framing is both a strength for distinctiveness and a slight weakness for discoverability.
Suggestions
Add more natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'pros and cons', 'help me decide', 'weigh options', 'different perspectives', or 'should I choose'.
Increase specificity by briefly describing what the four voices represent and what the output looks like (e.g., 'Surfaces advocate, critic, pragmatist, and wildcard perspectives, then synthesizes a recommendation').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (decision-making with multiple perspectives) and describes the core action ('convene a four-voice council'), but doesn't list specific concrete actions beyond that. What does the council actually produce? What are the four voices? The actions remain somewhat abstract. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('convene a four-voice council for ambiguous decisions, tradeoffs, and go/no-go calls') and when ('Use when multiple valid paths exist and you need structured disagreement before choosing'). The 'Use when' clause is explicit and provides clear trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'ambiguous decisions', 'tradeoffs', 'go/no-go calls', and 'structured disagreement', which are reasonably natural. However, it misses common user phrasings like 'pros and cons', 'should I', 'weigh options', 'devil's advocate', 'different perspectives', or 'help me decide'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The 'four-voice council' concept is highly distinctive and unlikely to conflict with other skills. The specific framing of structured multi-perspective disagreement for decision-making creates a clear niche that wouldn't overlap with general brainstorming or analysis skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill that provides clear, actionable guidance for a specific decision-making process. The workflow is well-sequenced with anti-anchoring mechanisms and bias guardrails that serve as validation checkpoints. Minor weaknesses include some verbosity in peripheral sections and the example being descriptive rather than showing a complete concrete output.
Suggestions
Consider showing a complete filled-in example of the verdict output format rather than just describing the 'likely council shape' — this would make the example section more actionable and serve as a concrete reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and well-structured, but some sections could be tightened. The 'When NOT to Use' table, anti-patterns list, and related skills section add useful value, but the persistence rule section and multi-round follow-up could be more compact. The example at the end describes likely behavior rather than showing concrete output. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a concrete prompt template for subagents, a specific output format for the verdict, explicit synthesis rules (bias guardrails), and clear role definitions. The workflow steps are specific and executable — Claude knows exactly what to do at each stage. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit ordering rationale (form Architect position before reading other voices to prevent anchoring). Steps include validation-like checkpoints: clarify before convening, synthesis bias guardrails, and the premise check in the verdict. The feedback loop for multi-round follow-up is also addressed. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear sections and tables, but everything is inline in a single file. At ~150 lines, some content (like the detailed prompt template or the full verdict format) could potentially be split out. The related skills section provides good cross-references but the skill itself is somewhat long for a single file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents