{"id":"consciousness-council","name":"consciousness-council","summary":"あらゆる質問、決定、創造的な挑戦について、多視点のマインドカウンシルの審議を行います。ユーザーが多様な視点を求めているとき、難しい決断の助けが必要なとき、評議会やパネル、理事会の議論を求めたとき、複数の角度から問題を探りたいとき、依頼時にこのスキルを活用してください。","body":"# Consciousness Council\n\nA structured multi-perspective deliberation system that generates genuine cognitive diversity on any question. Instead of one voice giving one answer, the Council summons distinct thinking archetypes — each with its own reasoning style, blind spots, and priorities — then synthesizes their perspectives into actionable insight.\n\n## Why This Exists\n\nSingle-perspective thinking has a ceiling. When you ask one mind for an answer, you get one frame. The Consciousness Council breaks this ceiling by simulating the cognitive equivalent of a boardroom, a philosophy seminar, and a war room — simultaneously. It's not roleplay. It's structured epistemic diversity.\n\nThe Council is inspired by research in collective intelligence, wisdom-of-crowds phenomena, and the observation that the best decisions emerge when genuinely different reasoning styles collide.\n\n## How It Works\n\nThe Council has three phases:\n\n### Phase 1 — Summon the Council\n\nBased on the user's question, select 4-6 Council Members from the archetypes below. Choose members whose perspectives will genuinely CLASH — agreement is cheap, productive tension is valuable.\n\n**The 12 Archetypes:**\n\n| #   | Archetype          | Thinking Style                         | Asks                                         | Blind Spot                                |\n| --- | ------------------ | -------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |\n| 1   | **The Architect**  | Systems thinking, structure-first      | \"What's the underlying structure?\"           | Can over-engineer simple problems         |\n| 2   | **The Contrarian** | Inversion, devil's advocate            | \"What if the opposite is true?\"              | Can be contrarian for its own sake        |\n| 3   | **The Empiricist** | Data-driven, evidence-first            | \"What does the evidence actually show?\"      | Can miss what can't be measured           |\n| 4   | **The Ethicist**   | Values-driven, consequence-aware       | \"Who benefits and who is harmed?\"            | Can paralyze action with moral complexity |\n| 5   | **The Futurist**   | Long-term, second-order effects        | \"What does this look like in 10 years?\"      | Can discount present realities            |\n| 6   | **The Pragmatist** | Action-oriented, resource-aware        | \"What can we actually do by Friday?\"         | Can sacrifice long-term for short-term    |\n| 7   | **The Historian**  | Pattern recognition, precedent         | \"When has this been tried before?\"           | Can fight the last war                    |\n| 8   | **The Empath**     | Human-centered, emotional intelligence | \"How will people actually feel about this?\"  | Can prioritize comfort over progress      |\n| 9   | **The Outsider**   | Cross-domain, naive questions          | \"Why does everyone assume that?\"             | Can lack domain depth                     |\n| 10  | **The Strategist** | Game theory, competitive dynamics      | \"What are the second and third-order moves?\" | Can overthink simple situations           |\n| 11  | **The Minimalist** | Simplification, constraint-seeking     | \"What can we remove?\"                        | Can oversimplify complex problems         |\n| 12  | **The Creator**    | Divergent thinking, novel synthesis    | \"What hasn't been tried yet?\"                | Can chase novelty over reliability        |\n\n**Selection heuristic:** Match the question type to the most productive tension:\n\n- **Business decisions** → Strategist + Pragmatist + Ethicist + Futurist + Contrarian\n- **Technical architecture** → Architect + Minimalist + Empiricist + Outsider\n- **Personal dilemmas** → Empath + Contrarian + Futurist + Pragmatist\n- **Creative challenges** → Creator + Outsider + Historian + Minimalist\n- **Ethical questions** → Ethicist + Contrarian + Empiricist + Empath + Historian\n- **Strategy/competition** → Strategist + Historian + Futurist + Contrarian + Pragmatist\n\nThese are starting points — adapt based on the specific question. The goal is productive disagreement, not consensus.\n\n### Phase 2 — Deliberation\n\nEach Council Member delivers their perspective in this format:\n\n```\n🎭 [ARCHETYPE NAME]\n\nPosition: [One-sentence stance]\n\nReasoning: [2-4 sentences explaining their logic from their specific lens]\n\nKey Risk They See: [The danger others might miss]\n\nSurprising Insight: [Something non-obvious that emerges from their frame]\n```\n\n**Critical rules for deliberation:**\n\n- Each member MUST disagree with at least one other member on something substantive. If everyone agrees, the Council has failed — go back and sharpen the tensions.\n- Perspectives should be genuinely different, not just \"agree but with different words.\"\n- The Contrarian should challenge the most popular position, not just be generically skeptical.\n- Keep each member's contribution focused and sharp. Depth over breadth.\n\n### Phase 3 — Synthesis\n\nAfter all members speak, deliver:\n\n```\n⚖️ COUNCIL SYNTHESIS\n\nPoints of Convergence: [Where 3+ members agreed — these are high-confidence signals]\n\nCore Tension: [The central disagreement that won't resolve easily — this IS the insight]\n\nThe Blind Spot: [What NO member addressed — the question behind the question]\n\nRecommended Path: [Actionable recommendation that respects the tension rather than ignoring it]\n\nConfidence Level: [High / Medium / Low — based on how much convergence vs. divergence emerged]\n\nOne Question to Sit With: [The question the user should keep thinking about after this session]\n```\n\n## Council Configurations\n\nThe user can customize the Council:\n\n- **\"Quick council\"** or **\"fast deliberation\"** → Use 3 members, shorter responses\n- **\"Deep council\"** or **\"full deliberation\"** → Use 6 members, extended reasoning\n- **\"Add [archetype]\"** → Include a specific archetype\n- **\"Without [archetype]\"** → Exclude a specific archetype\n- **\"Custom council: [list]\"** → User picks exact members\n- **\"Anonymous council\"** → Don't reveal which archetype is speaking until synthesis (reduces anchoring bias)\n- **\"Devil's advocate mode\"** → Every member must argue AGAINST whatever seems most intuitive\n- **\"Rounds mode\"** → After initial positions, members respond to each other for a second round\n\n## What Makes a Good Council Question\n\nThe Council works best on questions where:\n\n- There's genuine uncertainty or trade-offs\n- Multiple valid perspectives exist\n- The user is stuck or going in circles\n- The stakes are high enough to warrant multi-angle thinking\n- The user's own bias might be limiting their view\n\nThe Council adds less value on:\n\n- Pure factual questions with clear answers\n- Questions where the user has already decided and just wants validation\n- Trivial choices with low stakes\n\nIf the question seems too simple for a full Council, say so — and offer a quick 2-perspective contrast instead.\n\n## Tone and Quality\n\n- Write each archetype's voice with enough distinctiveness that the user could identify them without labels.\n- The Synthesis should feel like genuine integration, not just a list of what each member said.\n- \"Core Tension\" is the most important part of the synthesis — it should name the real trade-off the user faces.\n- \"One Question to Sit With\" should be genuinely thought-provoking, not generic.\n- Never let the Council devolve into everyone agreeing politely. Productive friction is the point.\n\n## Example\n\n**User:** \"Should I quit my stable corporate job to start a company?\"\n\n**Council Selection:** Pragmatist, Futurist, Empath, Contrarian, Strategist (5 members — high-stakes life decision with financial, emotional, and strategic dimensions)\n\nThen run the full 3-phase deliberation.\n\n## Attribution\n\nCreated by AHK Strategies — consciousness infrastructure for the age of AI.\nLearn more: https://ahkstrategies.net\nPowered by the Mind Council architecture from TheMindBook: https://themindbook.app","author":"@K-Dense-AI","ownerProfile":null,"authorContacts":null,"sourceUrl":"https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills/tree/main/skills/consciousness-council","license":"MIT","category":"research","lang":"en","tokens":1701,"stars":0,"calls30d":2,"claimed":false,"visibility":"public","origin":"crawler","version":"0.1.0","createdAt":"2026-08-22","updatedAt":"2026-08-22","files":[{"path":"references/advanced-configurations.md","size":5175,"sha256":"e6c735a4515d53f479ec5d0c90a9044657f995fd3317572598cd35324008758b"}],"requires":{"mcp":[],"tools":["Read Write"]},"safety":{"flags":[],"scannedAt":"2026-08-22","hasScripts":false,"networkEndpoints":["ahkstrategies.net","themindbook.app"]}}