Structured multi-criteria decision analysis for ranking options with weights, constraints, confidence, tradeoff reasoning, sensitivity analysis, and explaina...
编程
Multi-Council Decision Engine
试用Give your agent a virtual board of 8 specialized reasoning frameworks (strategy, risk, market, operations, ethics, forecasting, execution, AI-engineering) th...
它能做什么
Give your agent a virtual board of 8 specialized reasoning frameworks (strategy, risk, market, operations, ethics, forecasting, execution, AI-engineering) that independently evaluate a decision and synthesize a go/hold/kill verdict with confidence and concrete findings.
技能文档
Multi-Council Decision Engine
Most agents either skip strategic evaluation entirely or bolt on a single "is this a good idea?" LLM call. This skill gives your agent 8 distinct reasoning-framework "councils" — each one applies a genuinely different analytical lens (inversion/mental-models for strategy, antifragility/black-swan for risk, capital-allocation/reflexivity for market, workflow/bottleneck for operations, stakeholder/compliance for ethics, probabilistic/scenario for forecasting, first-principles for execution, architecture-tradeoffs for AI engineering) — then mechanically synthesizes their votes into one verdict.
This is not "ask the AI for advice" — it's a structured, repeatable decision gate: each council returns the same JSON shape (summary, key findings, risks, recommendation, confidence), risk/ethics councils get hard veto power over "kill" votes, and the synthesis is computed by counting votes, not by asking a model to summarize itself.
Why this matters
A single LLM call asked "should I do X?" tends to be agreeable and shallow. Running the same question through 8 independently-prompted, methodologically distinct frameworks and forcing them into a structured verdict catches things a single pass misses — this was built and battle-tested gating real business decisions (which is also exactly how a bug was caught during validation: see the synthesis-shape note below).
Setup
-
Copy both files (
business_mind_tree.py,venture_council_gate.py) into your project — they're designed to work together butbusiness_mind_tree.pycan be used standalone if you only need raw council calls without the gate/verdict wrapper. -
Set
OPENROUTER_API_KEYin your environment. -
Call a single council directly, or run the full gate:
from business_mind_tree import strategy_council, multi_council # one council result = strategy_council("Should we raise prices 10% this quarter?") print(result["recommendation"], result["confidence"]) # multiple councils + synthesis result = multi_council( "Should we raise prices 10% this quarter?", councils=["strategy", "risk", "market"], ) print(result["synthesis"]["consensus_recommendation"])Or use the higher-level gate (runs all 8 councils, returns a clean verdict):
from venture_council_gate import run_venture_gate gate = run_venture_gate("New venture idea: ...", venture_key="my_venture") print(gate.verdict, gate.confidence, gate.synthesis)
Important: synthesis is a STRING, not a dict
multi_council()'s raw return has result["synthesis"] as a dict
(consensus_recommendation, all_findings, all_concerns, etc). The gate
functions in venture_council_gate.py already convert this to readable text
via _synthesis_to_text() before returning it on GateResult.synthesis —
if you build your own wrapper around multi_council() directly, don't
assume result["synthesis"] is already a string, or you'll hit a TypeError
the first time you try to slice or concatenate it. This was a real bug found
in production use before this skill was published — _synthesis_to_text()
is the fix, kept in to save you from rediscovering it.
Models used
Most councils run on a dynamically-selected "heavy" model (compares current
flagship candidates by price/context-window and picks the cheapest in the
top tier — currently checks gpt-5.5, claude-opus-4.8, glm-5.2). Light
councils (operations, execution) use a cheaper fixed model. Override
COUNCILS in business_mind_tree.py if you want different model choices.
Cost
Each council call costs roughly $0.001-$0.01 depending on prompt length and
model selected (logged to cost_log.json next to the script). A full 8-council
gate run costs roughly $0.02-$0.08 total.
相关技能
Distill decision contexts, options, trade-offs, and outcomes into structured decision records. Use when the user is facing a choice, has made a decision they...
Run a decision asynchronously — the memo, the silent-read window, the comment protocol, and the deadline that makes it land without a meeting. Use when asked...
Use when the user asks for a council, second opinions, a debate, or multi-perspective deliberation on a question — or when a decision is high-stakes, contested, or ambiguous enough that a single answer risks being confidently wrong or sycophantic.
Structured decision modifiers (/think, /verify, /adversarial, /edge, /confidence, /assumptions, etc.) to stress-test conclusions, evidence, assumptions, alternatives, and edge cases. Use when validating an important design, architecture decision, or ambiguous plan before committing.
Use when a complex problem needs a structured expert team rather than a single general answer. Runs a Single-CEO Expert Council with a Nuwa-style decision le...