Council

Runs a multi-agent debate. Topic-briefed members discuss a topic over rounds, respond to each other's actual points, and surface insights through real intellectual friction. You get a visible round-by-round transcript plus a synthesis. DEBATE runs three rounds; QUICK runs one for a fast perspective check.

One model gives one frame and one set of blind spots, and "pros and cons" gives a flat list with no one pushing back; distinct experts who disagree on the merits expose the weak parts of an idea before you commit.

Ideal State

• Every council is four different topic-specific member briefs, written before the first round runs, each giving a name, the member's role/expertise, the stance they hold, and what they'll push on; no member is a bare built-in agent type with no persona.
• The members are split across vendors so the debate never shares one lineage's blind spots; a member that failed or did not run on its requested vendor is named in the transcript, never silently dropped or kept.
• Every member argues from the full context the request supplied (the measured facts, files, quotes and constraints), so positions engage the actual decision rather than a generic version of it.
• Members answer each other's actual points by name, and the transcript shows that friction round by round.
• The output ends in a usable verdict (a recommended path for DEBATE, proceed / reconsider / escalate for QUICK) that states remaining disagreement instead of forcing consensus.
• The answer delivered is the finished debate; no member's work is still running when it is handed over.

Intent Routing