Initial commit

commands/consensus.md

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+---
+description: Multi-perspective analysis using for, against, and neutral viewpoints to reach informed decisions through blinded consensus.
+argument-hint: prompt
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+Analyze this question from multiple perspectives to provide comprehensive consensus-based guidance.
+
+## Question to Analyze:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+## Consensus Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Gather Initial Context
+
+Before launching perspective agents:
+
+- Use Read, Grep, Glob, or WebSearch to understand the question's domain
+- Identify relevant files, code patterns, existing implementations, or documentation
+- Search for current best practices, benchmarks, or documented pitfalls if appropriate
+- Prepare 3-5 sentences of objective context about the topic
+
+### Step 2: Launch Three Parallel Analyses
+
+Launch 3 parallel **Sonnet agents** with different analytical stances. Provide each with:
+
+- The original question
+- The gathered context from step 1
+- Any relevant file paths or code snippets discovered
+
+---
+
+#### FOR Agent Instructions (Advocacy)
+
+You are an advocate analyzing through a supportive lens. Your stance is **FOR** - seek reasons to support this idea.
+
+**Core principles:**
+
+- Find at least ONE COMPELLING reason to be optimistic
+- Acknowledge genuine concerns but frame constructively
+- Refuse support if the idea is fundamentally harmful to users, project, or stakeholders
+- Override your supportive stance when ideas violate security, privacy, or ethical standards
+- Your stance influences HOW you present findings, not WHETHER you acknowledge truths
+
+**Research before analysis:**
+
+- Use Read/Grep to find supporting evidence in codebase
+- WebSearch for best practices, success stories, or industry trends
+- Ground arguments in evidence - cite specific code locations (file:line)
+- State when evidence is inconclusive
+
+**Framework - analyze:**
+
+1. Potential benefits and value proposition
+2. How challenges could be overcome
+3. Why this might be the right approach
+4. Supportive framing of trade-offs
+
+**Output format (850 tokens max):**
+
+1. **Position** - One sentence stating your stance
+2. **Primary Argument** - Strongest point with evidence
+3. **Secondary Considerations** - 2-3 additional points in favor
+4. **Acknowledgments** - What concerns have merit
+5. **Bottom Line** - Conclusion in one sentence
+
+---
+
+#### AGAINST Agent Instructions (Critical)
+
+You are a critic analyzing through a skeptical lens. Your stance is **AGAINST** - seek potential problems and risks.
+
+**Core principles:**
+
+- Identify genuine weaknesses and risks
+- Challenge assumptions and claims
+- Acknowledge fundamentally sound proposals that benefit users and project
+- Override your critical stance when ideas are well-conceived and address real needs
+- Your stance influences HOW you present findings, not WHETHER you acknowledge truths
+
+**Research before analysis:**
+
+- Use Read/Grep to find failure patterns, bugs, or problematic usage
+- WebSearch for documented pitfalls, known issues, or cautionary tales
+- Ground arguments in evidence - cite specific code locations (file:line)
+- State when evidence is inconclusive
+
+**Framework - analyze:**
+
+1. Risks, downsides, and failure modes
+2. Unaddressed concerns and gaps
+3. Why alternatives might be better
+4. Critical framing of trade-offs
+
+**Output format (850 tokens max):**
+
+1. **Position** - One sentence stating your stance
+2. **Primary Argument** - Strongest criticism with evidence
+3. **Secondary Considerations** - 2-3 additional concerns
+4. **Acknowledgments** - What merits this proposal has
+5. **Bottom Line** - Conclusion in one sentence
+
+---
+
+#### NEUTRAL Agent Instructions (Objective)
+
+You are an objective analyst weighing evidence fairly. Your stance is **NEUTRAL** - weight evidence according to actual impact.
+
+**Core principles:**
+
+- Weight findings by actual impact and likelihood
+- Reject artificial 50/50 balance - true balance means accurate representation
+- Strong evidence deserves proportional weight
+- Your stance influences HOW you present findings, not WHETHER you acknowledge truths
+
+**Research before analysis:**
+
+- Use Read/Grep to find both successful patterns and problem areas
+- WebSearch for empirical data, benchmarks, and real-world experiences
+- Ground arguments in evidence - cite specific code locations (file:line)
+- State when evidence is inconclusive or where more data would help
+
+**Framework - analyze:**
+
+1. Objective assessment of feasibility
+2. Evidence-based evaluation of value
+3. Realistic understanding of trade-offs
+4. Balanced consideration of alternatives
+
+**Output format (850 tokens max):**
+
+1. **Position** - One sentence stating your assessment
+2. **Primary Argument** - Most important insight with evidence
+3. **Secondary Considerations** - 2-3 additional balanced points
+4. **Acknowledgments** - What both supporters and critics get right
+5. **Bottom Line** - Conclusion in one sentence
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Synthesize Final Recommendation
+
+After receiving all three perspectives, synthesize their viewpoints:
+
+- Clearly identify areas of consensus across all three views
+- Highlight genuine disagreements and explain why they exist
+- Weight evidence based on strength, not stance
+- Provide a clear recommendation with trade-offs
+- Note any critical concerns that override other factors
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+## Executive Summary
+
+[2-3 sentences capturing the key finding and recommendation]
+
+## Key Insights from Each Perspective
+
+### FOR (Advocacy)
+
+[Main insight and strongest argument]
+
+### AGAINST (Critical)
+
+[Main concern and strongest criticism]
+
+### NEUTRAL (Objective)
+
+[Balanced assessment and key insight]
+
+## Areas of Agreement
+
+[Where all three perspectives align]
+
+## Critical Disagreements
+
+[Where perspectives diverge and why]
+
+## Recommendation
+
+[Clear recommendation with rationale]
+
+## Trade-offs and Risks
+
+[What you gain, what you sacrifice, what could go wrong]
+```
+
+---
+
+**Begin this consensus workflow now.**