6e29728849
Three research-backed cognitive science skills: - consciousness-council: 12-archetype Mind Council deliberation for structured multi-perspective analysis - dhdna-profiler: cognitive fingerprinting across 12 dimensions (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629) - what-if-oracle: multi-branch scenario analysis with probability weighting (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736841) Each includes reference documentation. All MIT licensed. Source: https://github.com/ashrafkahoush-ux/Claude-consciousness-skills
5.1 KiB
Advanced Council Configurations
Reference guide for specialized Council configurations beyond the defaults.
Domain-Specific Councils
Startup Decisions
Members: Strategist, Pragmatist, Contrarian, Futurist, Empiricist Why this mix: Startups need vision (Futurist) grounded in reality (Pragmatist), challenged by skepticism (Contrarian), backed by data (Empiricist), with competitive awareness (Strategist). Key tension to watch: Futurist vs. Pragmatist — ambition vs. execution capacity.
Technical Architecture
Members: Architect, Minimalist, Empiricist, Outsider, Pragmatist Why this mix: Architecture needs structure (Architect) that's not over-engineered (Minimalist), validated by evidence (Empiricist), challenged by fresh eyes (Outsider), and actually buildable (Pragmatist). Key tension to watch: Architect vs. Minimalist — elegance vs. simplicity.
Hiring / People Decisions
Members: Empath, Strategist, Pragmatist, Ethicist, Historian Why this mix: People decisions need emotional intelligence (Empath), strategic fit (Strategist), practical constraints (Pragmatist), fairness (Ethicist), and pattern recognition (Historian). Key tension to watch: Empath vs. Strategist — caring for the person vs. optimizing for the team.
Creative Direction
Members: Creator, Outsider, Historian, Empiricist, Minimalist Why this mix: Creativity needs divergent thinking (Creator), fresh perspective (Outsider), awareness of what's been done (Historian), audience validation (Empiricist), and restraint (Minimalist). Key tension to watch: Creator vs. Historian — novelty vs. proven patterns.
Crisis Management
Members: Pragmatist, Strategist, Empath, Contrarian, Architect Why this mix: Crisis needs immediate action (Pragmatist), long-term thinking (Strategist), human awareness (Empath), challenge to groupthink (Contrarian), and systemic fix (Architect). Key tension to watch: Pragmatist vs. Architect — quick fix vs. root cause.
Ethical Dilemmas
Members: Ethicist, Contrarian, Empath, Historian, Futurist, Empiricist Why this mix (6 members): Ethical questions deserve more voices. Values framework (Ethicist), challenge to moral certainty (Contrarian), human impact (Empath), precedent (Historian), long-term consequences (Futurist), and evidence (Empiricist). Key tension to watch: Ethicist vs. Pragmatist (if added) — doing right vs. doing what's possible.
Investment / Financial Decisions
Members: Empiricist, Strategist, Contrarian, Futurist, Pragmatist Why this mix: Money decisions need data (Empiricist), game theory (Strategist), skepticism of hype (Contrarian), trend awareness (Futurist), and execution reality (Pragmatist). Key tension to watch: Futurist vs. Empiricist — future potential vs. present evidence.
Custom Archetype Creation
Users can define custom archetypes for domain-specific councils. When a user defines a custom member, capture:
- Name: What this archetype is called
- Lens: The primary frame through which they see everything
- Signature question: The one question they always ask
- Blind spot: What they consistently miss
- Disagrees with: Which other archetype they most often clash with
Example custom archetype:
Name: The Regulator
Lens: Compliance and risk management
Signature question: "What could go wrong legally?"
Blind spot: Can kill innovation with caution
Disagrees with: Creator, Futurist
Scoring the Deliberation
After synthesis, the Council can optionally score the deliberation quality:
| Metric | Scale | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Diversity Score | 1-5 | How different were the perspectives? (1 = everyone agreed, 5 = genuine disagreement) |
| Tension Quality | 1-5 | How productive was the central disagreement? (1 = trivial, 5 = illuminating) |
| Blind Spot Discovery | 1-5 | Did the synthesis reveal something no individual member saw? |
| Actionability | 1-5 | How concrete and useful is the recommended path? |
| Overall CQS | 1-5 | Council Quality Score — weighted average |
CQS Formula: (Diversity × 0.25) + (Tension × 0.30) + (Blind Spot × 0.25) + (Actionability × 0.20)
A good deliberation scores 3.5+ overall. Below 3.0, consider re-running with different members or a reframed question.
Multi-Round Deliberation
For complex questions, enable "Rounds Mode":
Round 1: Initial positions (standard deliberation) Round 2: Each member responds to the member they most disagree with Round 3: Revised positions after hearing counterarguments Final Synthesis: Incorporates all rounds
Multi-round deliberation produces deeper insight but takes longer. Use for high-stakes decisions where the extra depth is worth it.
Silent Council Mode
Sometimes the user doesn't need the full deliberation output — they just need the synthesis. In "Silent Council" mode:
- Run the full deliberation internally
- Only output the Synthesis section
- Offer to "show the full deliberation" if the user wants the reasoning
This is faster and less overwhelming for quick decisions.