--- LLM: Claude type: blueprint slug: multi-agent-consilium lang: en date: 2026-04-20 title: "Blueprint: Multi-Agent Consilium" tagline: AI agents that debate your problem before you decide description: A panel of cognitively diverse AI agents independently analyze your problem, debate each other across three rounds, and produce structured decision artifacts. Not one model pretending to have multiple viewpoints — a genuine clash of different ways of thinking. audience: For anyone making high-stakes decisions who wants more than a single AI perspective — founders, operators, product leads, strategists --- # Blueprint: Multi-Agent Consilium You ask AI something complex. You get a smooth, confident answer — one perspective. You try a trick: "give me three viewpoints." You get three variations of the same opinion dressed in different words. The model converges to its own bias regardless of instruction — that's not a bug, it's an architectural property. For simple questions, this is fine. For high-stakes decisions — it's not. When you're choosing between pivoting and scaling, when you're deciding whether to fire or restructure a team, when you're betting on a product that will take six months of your life — you need genuine cognitive diversity, not cosplay. This Blueprint describes a pattern: a **multi-agent consilium** — a panel of AI agents with different cognitive styles that independently analyze a problem, debate each other, and produce structured artifacts for decision-making. Not one model's opinion from different angles, but a clash of different ways of thinking. ## What You Get - **A panel of cognitively diverse agents** — each with a persistent persona, a distinctive voice, and its own analytical approach - **A debate protocol** (independence --> confrontation --> synthesis) — prevents premature consensus and averaging - **4 structured artifacts** from every session: Tension Map, Risk-scored Ideas, Decision Brief, Blind Spots - **A decision archive** — the full discussion is saved as a session you can revisit - **Knowledge base integration** — agents receive context from your files through links in the problem description ## How to Apply 1. Open any orchestrator that supports parallel sub-agents (Claude Code, Cursor, a custom script, any multi-agent framework) **in your knowledge base directory** 2. Show it this Blueprint: "Build me a multi-agent consilium using this Blueprint" 3. The agent will ask questions from the "Adaptation Questions" section 4. Answer about your domain, models, file structure 5. The agent will create: persona files, orchestration config, session and problem templates **Context:** a single session. The agent needs access to your knowledge base files (for resolving links) and the ability to create new files. ## When to Use - **Strategic crossroads** — pivot or scale? Hire or automate? Ship now or iterate? - **Hunting blind spots** — you suspect something's missing but can't see what - **Stress-testing a plan** — the plan is ready, but you want to find holes before you start - **Before irreversible decisions** — the cost of a missed perspective is high - **Divergent thinking** — you need a fan of ideas before narrowing down **NOT for:** - Factual questions (use search) - Routine tasks (a single agent will do) - Decisions already made (dissent will just annoy you) - Problems without context (agents can't debate in a vacuum) **Litmus test:** "Would two smart people genuinely argue about this?" If yes — it's for the consilium. ## Core Idea **Independence BEFORE confrontation BEFORE synthesis. Character voice prevents averaging.** The human: - Formulates the problem (tension, context, question) - Observes the debate or waits for the result - Makes a decision based on the artifacts The system: - Generates independent perspectives (round 1) - Orchestrates confrontation (round 2) - Collects final positions (round 3) - Synthesizes artifacts from the full discussion ## Architecture ``` Problem (input) | v +---------------------------------------------------+ | Round 1: Independent Analysis | | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +-------+ | | |Persona A| |Persona B| |Persona C| | ... | | | +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +---+---+ | | | | | | | | Independent. Cannot see each other. | +-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------+ v v v v +---------------------------------------------------+ | Round 2: Confrontation | | | | Each sees the others' positions. | | Attacks. Defends. Looks for synthesis points. | | | +-------------------------+-------------------------+ v +---------------------------------------------------+ | Round 3: Final Positions | | | | Each sees the FULL discussion (R1 + R2). | | "Here's what I think NOW, after everyone." | | | +-------------------------+-------------------------+ v +---------------------------------------------------+ | Synthesizer | | | | A separate role (not a persona). | | Reads R1 + R2 + R3 in full. | | Generates 4 artifacts. | | | +-------------------------+-------------------------+ v +--------------------+ | Tension Map | | Risk-scored Ideas | | Decision Brief | | Blind Spots | +--------------------+ ``` ### File Structure ``` Consilium/ ├── Agents/ — persona files (one file = one archetype) │ ├── disruptor.md │ ├── visionary.md │ ├── critic.md │ └── rationalist.md ├── Problems/ — problem descriptions (input) │ └── YYYY-MM-DD Problem Title.md ├── Sessions/ — session results (output) │ └── YYYY-MM-DD Problem Title.md ├── Templates/ │ ├── problem.md — problem template │ └── session.md — session template ├── Guides/ │ └── How to Frame a Problem.md └── CLAUDE.md — orchestrator instructions ``` File and folder names are examples. The structure adapts to your tools and conventions. What matters: **personas, problems, and sessions live as separate files** — this lets you reuse personas, archive sessions, and resolve links. ### Three Layers 1. **Personas** — persistent cognitive archetypes. Live as files, reused across sessions. They define not *what* the agent thinks, but *how* it thinks. 2. **Orchestrator** — manages the sequence of rounds, passes context, resolves knowledge base links. This can be a coding agent, a script, or any multi-agent framework. 3. **Session Store** — a complete record of the discussion + artifacts. One session = one problem. Lives in your knowledge base, available for retrospective review. ## Key Principles ### 1. Cognitive diversity > number of agents Three agents with genuinely different ways of thinking are worth more than ten that differ only in phrasing. The minimum panel composition is about **balance**: constructive (see opportunities) + destructive (see holes) + neutral (see trade-offs). Typical ratio: 2 constructive + 1 destructive + 1 neutral. Example archetypes: - **Disruptor** — inverts the problem, finds workarounds, steals solutions from other industries - **Visionary** — sees scale, potential, the constructive path forward - **Critic** — stress-tests: pre-mortem, devil's advocate, deconstructing assumptions - **Rationalist** — calculates trade-offs, second-order consequences, evaluates strategy These are examples, not prescriptions. A technical review needs different archetypes. A creative task — yet another set. ### 2. Independence in the first round This is the most important principle. If agents see each other from the start — they anchor on the first answer and converge. The first round must be fully isolated: each agent receives the same problem but works in a vacuum. The result — a set of uncontaminated perspectives. ### 3. Character voice = defense against averaging Each agent is not "an analyst with a different focus." It's a character with its own voice: metaphors, tone, stylistic quirks. Character voice isn't decoration. It's a mechanism: when the agent is "in character," it doesn't slide into a generic AI answer. The role protects diversity. ### 4. Confrontation, not politeness The second round is a debate, not "great point, and I'd add..." Each agent gets an explicit instruction: attack the weak spots of the others, defend your own position, don't agree out of politeness. Confrontation isn't aggression — it's respect for the idea: a weak idea that was never attacked is more dangerous than one that was rejected. ### 5. Artifacts > opinions The consilium's ultimate value isn't that the agents talked. It's the structured artifacts: - **Tension Map** shows where there's confidence and where there's a choice to make - **Risk-scored Ideas** turn proposals into scored options with failure modes - **Decision Brief** gives an actionable framework: "if your priority is X — do A" - **Blind Spots** surface questions that nobody asked Without artifacts, debates are entertainment. With artifacts — a decision-making tool. ### 6. The problem defines the quality of the debate Garbage in — garbage out. A vague problem ("how to become successful?") produces vague debates. A good problem contains three elements: **tension** (what pulls in different directions), **context** (numbers, constraints, what's been tried), **frame** (a specific question that sets the direction). ## Workflow ### Scenario A: Strategic Crossroads > "Scale the current product or pivot to a new market?" **Formulation:** Describe both paths, provide numbers (current revenue, new market size, resources), state constraints (budget, team, time), link to strategic documents via references. **What to look for in artifacts:** Decision Brief will give you a fork — "if your priority is growth — A, if stability — B." Blind Spots will show which assumptions are unverified. Risk-scored Ideas will give concrete steps with ratings. ### Scenario B: Stress-Testing a Plan > "We've decided to launch the product in 3 months. Where are the holes?" **Formulation:** Describe the plan in detail, attach the timeline and dependencies. Question: "What will go wrong? Where's the single point of failure? Which assumptions are unverified?" **What to look for:** Tension Map will show where they agree (reliable) and where they diverge (risky). The Critic's Closing Statements will point to the most likely failure scenario. ### Scenario C: Creative Exploration > "How can we monetize a community without turning it into a paid club?" **Formulation:** Describe the current model, audience, what members value. Don't constrain the direction — let the agents diverge. **What to look for:** The Disruptor will propose unexpected options. The Visionary will show the scale. Risk-scored Ideas will filter viable from reckless. ## Solution Components ### Personas **What it is:** A file describing a cognitive archetype — not an instruction to "be an analyst," but a full character profile: voice, style, thinking techniques, rules of engagement in debates. **Why character voice matters:** Without it, the agent slides into generic output. Character voice is a constraint that forces the model to generate genuinely different responses, not variations of one. **Inputs:** Problem description + (optionally) context from the knowledge base. **Outputs:** An extended position (800-1500 words in R1, 600-1200 in R2, 5-7 key points in R3). **Balance:** Minimum 3 personas, optimally 4. The ratio of constructive, destructive, and neutral — tuned to your domain. ### Orchestrator **What it is:** The logic that manages the sequence of rounds, passes context, and collects results. **Key requirements:** - Parallel agent execution within a single round - Strictly sequential execution between rounds (R2 depends on R1) - Full context passing: in R2 each agent sees their own R1 + others' R1; in R3 — the entire discussion - Link resolution: if the problem contains links to knowledge base files — read and include them in the prompt - Writing each round's results to the session file **Implementation:** Can be a coding agent (Claude Code, Cursor), a Python script with API calls, or any multi-agent framework that supports parallel tasks. ### Session Store **What it is:** A structured file capturing the full discussion and artifacts. **Format:** One file per problem. Contains: metadata (date, problem, participants), problem text, three rounds with each agent's responses, synthesis artifacts. **Archive value:** Three months later you can return to a session and see not just the decision, but the full logic of the debate — why some arguments won and others didn't. This is institutional memory. ### Synthesizer **What it is:** A separate role (not one of the personas) that reads the full discussion and generates the artifacts. **Why separate:** The synthesizer must be objective — not pull toward any participant. That's why it has no persona, no character voice, no position. Only structured analysis. **Inputs:** Full discussion (R1 + R2 + R3) + problem description. **Outputs:** 4 artifacts. | Artifact | Contents | |----------|----------| | **Tension Map** | Agreement (reliable signal), disagreement (choice zone), unique insights | | **Risk-scored Ideas** | Table: idea, author, risk, failure mode, mitigation | | **Decision Brief** | "If your priority is X — do A. Ready to take a risk — B. Avoid C." | | **Blind Spots** | Questions that weren't asked but should have been | ## Adaptation Questions The agent asks these questions during the initial system setup. ### Domain and Context - What domain will you use the consilium in? (business strategy, product decisions, technical architecture, creative work, other) - What level of problems is typical? (tactical, strategic, existential) - What language should the debates be conducted in? ### Models and Tools - What orchestrator are you using? (Claude Code, Cursor, API script, other) - What models are available? (important for role distribution: stronger models for constructive roles, mid-tier for destructive ones) - Are there context window limitations? (affects response length per round) - How many parallel requests are supported? ### Personas - Use default archetypes (disruptor, visionary, critic, rationalist) or create custom ones? - Are there domain-specific roles? (e.g., for tech review: security expert, performance engineer) - What tone for the debates? (aggressive, academic, direct) ### Output and Integration - Where to store sessions? (folder, format, naming convention) - Which artifacts are most valuable to you? (you can remove/add) - Do you need link resolution to knowledge base files? - Will problems come as text or through template files? ## Pitfalls & Edge Cases ### Agents converge to a single opinion **Symptom:** In R1 everyone says roughly the same thing in different words. **Cause:** Weak personas. If the persona description is two paragraphs of "be creative," the model ignores it. **Fix:** The persona must be detailed: voice (tone, metaphors, stylistic quirks), thinking techniques (specific methods), rules of engagement in debates. 500+ words per persona. ### Vague problem — flabby debate **Symptom:** Agents reason about abstract things, give no specifics. **Cause:** A problem without tension or context. "How to improve the product?" is not a problem. **Fix:** Require: what pulls in different directions + numbers/constraints + a specific question. A separate guide on formulating problems is a good investment. ### The Critic dominates **Symptom:** Everything's torn apart, nothing's proposed. Other agents in R2 start making excuses. **Cause:** The destructive role is too powerful, the constructive ones are too weak. Or the critic is on a stronger model than the rest. **Fix:** Balance the models (constructive roles on stronger models). Add an explicit rule to the critic's persona: "If you attack — propose an alternative." ### Synthesis loses nuance **Symptom:** Artifacts look like an "average" of the discussion, not a synthesis. **Cause:** The synthesizer wasn't instructed to preserve tension. Or the discussion is too long and doesn't fit in context. **Fix:** Explicit requirement: "The Tension Map must show WHERE EXACTLY opinions diverged and what that means. Don't smooth it over." ### Context overflow **Symptom:** R3 or Synthesis can't fit the full discussion. **Cause:** Multiple agents x 3 rounds x 1000 words = ~12,000 words, plus the problem, plus knowledge base context. **Fix:** Calibrate response length to the available context. R3 — key points only. For Synthesis, you can use a model with a larger context window. ### Debate for debate's sake **Symptom:** The discussion is interesting, but the Decision Brief is useless. **Cause:** The problem was exploration ("what do you all think?"), not decision ("A or B?"). **Fix:** Distinguish two modes: exploration (Tension Map + Blind Spots) and decision (all four artifacts). Not every problem needs a Decision Brief. ## Scaling The pattern "a panel of cognitively diverse agents + rounds + artifacts" applies well beyond strategic decisions: - **Technical Review Board** — architect + security expert + performance engineer + UX advocate. Stress-test architecture from four sides - **Content Review** — editor + target reader + SEO analyst + brand voice guardian. Tear apart an article before publication - **Product Discovery** — skeptical user + enthusiast + business analyst + engineer. Evaluate a feature - **Hiring Committee** — culture fit + technical depth + growth potential + risk assessment. Structure the candidate discussion In all cases the core is the same: independence --> confrontation --> synthesis. Only the personas and artifacts change. ## Output Artifacts When the system is initialized, the agent creates: | Artifact | Description | How to verify | |----------|-------------|---------------| | Persona files (3-5) | Cognitive archetype description: voice, techniques, rules | Each file 500+ words, style is unique | | Problem template | Structure: tension + context + question | Contains formulation prompts | | Session template | Sections for each round + artifacts | All rounds and artifacts are accounted for | | Orchestration config | Instructions for the orchestrator: sequence, prompts, models | Run a test session on a simple problem | | Problem formulation guide | What works, what doesn't, examples | Reads in 5 minutes, gives a clear checklist |