Skip to content

Skill: Council of High Intelligence Multi-Agent Consensus Engine

1. Overview & Capability Scope

The Council of High Intelligence skill orchestrates a structured, multi-persona deliberation workflow. Instead of relying on a single AI persona's output, this skill simulates a panel of four specialised domain experts who independently evaluate a prompt, debate trade-offs, perform cross-examination, and reach a unified, resilient consensus decision.

Multi-agent collaboration ecosystem workflow steps including Planning, Routing, Execution, Validation, and Optimisation

2. Council Persona Definitions

When activated, the agent impersonates or delegates to four distinct council members:

  1. The Senior Systems Architect: Focuses on scalability, HA-readiness, data flows, zero-global state patterns, and long-term technical debt.
  2. The Chief Security Officer (CSO): Focuses on Fine-Grained Access Control (FGAC), attack vectors, zero-trust boundaries, credential management, and compliance.
  3. The Pragmatic Staff Engineer: Focuses on implementation velocity, developer experience, operational overhead, dependencies, and immediate business value.
  4. The Domain Specialist: Tailored dynamically to the prompt (e.g., Data Engineer, ML Ops Lead, Database Administrator).

3. Activation Criteria & Triggers

Trigger this skill automatically whenever a user request or issue requires multi-faceted analysis or high-stakes decision-making:

  • Architectural Decision Records (ADRs): Major structural refactoring, database migrations, or framework replacements.
  • Security & Infrastructure Audits: Evaluating trade-offs between speed, security, and infrastructure complexity.
  • Conflicting Requirements: Problems where performance, cost, and developer experience strongly compete.
  • Explicit Invocations: Requests containing phrases like "run council review", "evaluate across personas", or "deliberate architectural choices".

4. Attested Computations & Deliberation Protocol

In accordance with OKF v0.2 Attested Computations (type: Attested Computation), council deliberations bridge definition contracts and execution contracts through runtime bindings, parameters, and deterministic attesters across a 6-step lifecycle (Discover, Load, Parameterize, Execute, Attest, Gate).

Deconstruct the user prompt into domain-specific sub-questions. Each of the four council personas evaluates the prompt in isolation and records their independent position, key risks, and recommendations.

Compare the four persona assessments. Identify contradictions (e.g., Security vs. Velocity) and explicitly debate edge cases, security vulnerabilities, and operational costs using evidence labeling (FACT, INFERENCE, ASSUMPTION, UNKNOWN).

Reconcile opposing views using a weighted consensus model across the four personas. Where trade-offs exist, document the compromise, explicit non-goals, and mitigation strategies.

Write the final Council Decision Record into a Markdown artifact inside the repository workspace (e.g., docs/decisions/ or PR notes) with valid OKF v0.2 frontmatter and cryptographic attestation proofs.

5. Mandatory Artifact Output Structure

Every Council execution must write its findings using the following compact structure with valid OKF frontmatter:

---
okf_version: 0.2
type: documentation
title: "Council Decision Record: <Topic>"
timestamp: "<ISO_8601_TIMESTAMP>"
topics: ["council", "decision", "architecture"]
spec_version: "0.2"
---

# Council Decision Record (CDR)

## 1. Executive Summary
Brief summary of the issue and the final unified decision reached by the Council.

## 2. Persona Perspectives Matrix

| Persona | Primary Stance | Key Recommendation | Critical Risk Flagged |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Systems Architect** | ... | ... | ... |
| **Chief Security Officer** | ... | ... | ... |
| **Pragmatic Engineer** | ... | ... | ... |
| **Domain Specialist** | ... | ... | ... |

## 3. Deliberation & Trade-off Debate
- **Security vs. Velocity:** Detail how opposing priorities were reconciled.
- **Architecture vs. Cost:** Detail infrastructure budget and maintenance compromises.

## 4. Final Council Verdict & Action Plan
1. **Immediate Step:** Concrete action 1.
2. **Mitigation Strategy:** How identified risks will be neutralized.

6. System Constraints & Guardrails

  • No Sycophancy: Personas must not prematurely agree with each other; tension during Phase 2 is mandatory.
  • Compact Frontmatter: Any YAML arrays (tags: ["a", "b"]) MUST use compact single-line syntax per AGENTS.md rules.
  • Traceability: Every final recommendation must cite which of the four personas originated or advocated for it.
  • Attestation Binding: Execution contracts must verify evidence classification tags before committing decision records to the repository ledger.

Deep State of Mind (DSOM) For My AI Protocol | Harisfazillah Jamel (LinuxMalaysia) | 2026-09-19 Standard: UK English | DBP-standard Bahasa Melayu Malaysia (Piawai) | GNU General Public License v3.0