consilium

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

**Delegated language context:** Resolve replies/artifacts through `${DATARIM_RUNTIME:?}/skills/datarim-system/language-preferences.md` before dispatch. Pass both validated tags explicitly in the child prompt and via `DATARIM_REPLY_LANG` / `DATARIM_ARTIFACT_LANG` for child processes. Machine-only protocols retain their exact syntax.


# Consilium — Multi-Agent Panel Discussions

## What is Consilium

Consilium is a structured council of Datarim agents debating a decision. Instead of a single perspective, the agent simulates multiple specialized viewpoints — architect, security analyst, SRE, strategist — to surface conflicts, blind spots, and tradeoffs before committing to a path.

Use Consilium for:
- Architecture decisions with lasting impact
- Trade-off analysis where no obvious "right answer" exists
- Production readiness assessments
- New feature evaluation at L3-4 complexity

**Do NOT use Consilium for:** L1-2 tasks, simple bug fixes, or questions with clear answers. Over-consilium wastes time.

---

## Pipeline

```
SCOPE → ASSEMBLE → ANALYZE → DEBATE → CONVERGE → DELIVER
```

---

## Step 1: SCOPE

Define the question clearly before assembling the panel.

**Required:**
- **Question:** One sentence. What decision needs to be made?
- **Context:** What constraints, history, and goals are relevant?
- **Blast radius:** How far does this decision reach?

### Blast Radius Classification

| Level | Name | Description | Example |
|-------|------|-------------|---------|
| 1 | Contained | Single module/file, easily reversible | Rename internal function |
| 2 | Host-level | Multiple files in one service | Change data model |
| 3 | Cross-system | Multiple services or external APIs | New auth provider |
| 4 | Business-critical | Revenue, users, compliance, or data integrity | Payment flow redesign |

**Rule:** Blast radius 1-2 rarely needs Consilium. Reserve it for 3-4.

---

## Step 2: ASSEMBLE

Select agents based on the question domain. Load each agent's file from `${DATARIM_RUNTIME:?}/agents/{name}.md`.

### Preset Panels

| Decision Type | Agents | Why |
|--------------|--------|-----|
| Architecture decision | architect, strategist, security, sre, devops | Structural choices need ops + security perspective |
| Code design | developer, reviewer, code-simplifier | Implementation quality needs review lens |
| Production readiness | sre, devops, security | Reliability + security gate before release |
| New feature | strategist, architect, developer, writer | Business alignment + technical feasibility + docs |
| Performance | sre, architect, developer | Load patterns + structural limits + implementation |

### Custom Panel

For questions that don't fit a preset, pick 3-7 agents from the full roster:

`planner, architect, developer, reviewer, compliance, code-simplifier, strategist, devops, writer, security, sre`

**Rules:**
- Minimum 3 agents for meaningful discussion
- Maximum 7 agents — more creates noise, not signal
- Always include at least one agent who will challenge the majority

---

## Step 3: ANALYZE

Each agent evaluates the question through their specialized lens.

**Format per agent:**

```markdown
### {Agent Name} — {Role}

**Position:** [Support / Oppose / Conditional support]

**Analysis:**
- [Key observation from this agent's perspective]
- [Risk or opportunity only this agent would see]
- [Recommendation with rationale]

**Conditions:** [What must be true for their recommendation to work]
```

**Rules:**
- Each agent speaks independently — do not blend perspectives
- Focus on what only THIS agent would notice
- Be specific — "security risk" is useless, "unauthenticated endpoint at /api/export exposes PII" is useful

---

## Step 4: DEBATE

Surface conflicts between agents. Not every analysis will agree — that is the point.

### Conflict Table

| Agent A | Agent B | Conflict | Resolution Path |
|---------|---------|----------|-----------------|
| architect | sre | Architect wants microservices; SRE wants monolith for operational simplicity | Evaluate team size and ops maturity |
| developer | security | Developer wants to store tokens in localStorage for simplicity; Security requires httpOnly cookies | Security wins — use httpOnly cookies |

**Rules:**
- Only real conflicts. If agents agree, skip DEBATE.
- Each conflict must have a resolution path (even if "needs more data")
- Maximum 2 rounds of debate. If unresolved after 2 rounds, escalate to CONVERGE.

---

From Arcanada-one/datarim, MIT.

More from Arcanada-one/datarim