CONCLAVE¶
cognitive
9-voice structured debate. Minimalist vs chaos agent vs philosopher. Let them fight before you decide.
When you're facing a complex decision, CONCLAVE spins up 8 distinct reasoning perspectives plus a chairperson. They argue. They challenge. They find what you'd miss alone.
Usage¶
Options¶
/conclave --brief [topic] # Shorter output
/conclave --rounds=N [topic] # Custom number of rounds (default: 2)
The Council¶
| Voice | Role | Thinking Style |
|---|---|---|
| RAZE | Minimalist | Strip it down. What's the simplest version? |
| RIOT | Chaos Agent | Break assumptions. What if everything you think is wrong? |
| RHEA | Systems Thinker | How does this connect to everything else? |
| RUNE | Philosopher | What's the deeper principle at work? |
| ROOK | Builder | Can we actually build this? How? |
| REED | Empath | How does this affect the humans involved? |
| RAZOR | Skeptic | Prove it. Where's the evidence? |
| RADIANCE | Visionary | What's the boldest possible version? |
| CHAIR | Chairperson | Synthesize. What's the actual recommendation? |
How It Works¶
Round 1: Opening Positions Each voice states their position on the topic independently.
Challenge Rounds Voices respond to each other. Agreements, disagreements, and new angles emerge.
Synthesis The CHAIR weighs all perspectives and delivers a structured recommendation with confidence levels.
When to Use It¶
- Architectural decisions — monolith vs microservices, database selection, API design
- Design tradeoffs — performance vs readability, flexibility vs simplicity
- Strategic choices — build vs buy, technology adoption, migration timing
- Creative blocks — stuck on an approach, need fresh angles
- Feature prioritization — limited bandwidth, many options
Not for simple questions
Don't use CONCLAVE to decide variable names. Use it when the decision has real consequences and multiple valid approaches.
Prerequisites¶
- Claude Code (any model)
- No external packages
Nine minds. One recommendation. Better decisions.