gh-krmcbride-claude-plugins-essentials/commands/consensus.md

description, argument-hint, disable-model-invocation

description	argument-hint	disable-model-invocation
Multi-perspective analysis using for, against, and neutral viewpoints to reach informed decisions through blinded consensus.	prompt	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

## 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.