Vixero council

vixero-council

Six independent lenses review the input. Judge synthesizes. Disagreements preserved. Groupthink blocked by protocol.

Trigger on

• "convene council" / "council review"
• "review from all angles" / "attack from every perspective"
• Before: architecture choice, public API, migration, refactor > 500 lines, production deploy

Scope

• review mode: code / patch / design doc / proposal → six-lens critique
• advisory mode: decision question → six-lens recommendation
• For task-scale single-lens reviews use surgical-diff, simplicity-audit, goal-criteria

Protocol (strict order)

1. Read input. Classify mode. Record subject.
2. For each lens in order, open ./personas/{lens}.md, apply, emit findings. No lens reads another's output before emitting. Anti-contamination is mandatory.
3. Run judge synthesis AFTER all six emit.
4. Render canonical output block.

The six lenses

#	lens	question	emoji	file
1	correctness	does it do what it claims under all inputs?	🎯	personas/correctness.md
2	adversary	how does a motivated attacker break it?	🗡️	personas/adversary.md
3	maintainer	what costs time in 6 months?	🔧	personas/maintainer.md
4	performance	what does it cost at stated scale?	🔥	personas/performance.md
5	integration	does it fit the contracts it touches?	🧩	personas/integration.md
6	contrarian	what if the premise is wrong?	🎭	personas/contrarian.md

Severity tiers

tier	meaning
blocker	ship breaks production, security, or data
major	high debt or user harm; ship only with tracked follow-up
minor	nits, style, future refinement

Judge ⚖️

1. Consolidate findings; dedupe cross-lens hits; credit strongest framing.
2. Surface disagreements — do NOT flatten.
3. Decide: SHIP | SHIP WITH FIXES | REWORK | REJECT.
4. Confidence: 0–100, rounded to 10s. No 73%, no 87%.
5. Top-3 concrete actions before ship.
6. Minority report: strongest dissenting lens, named.

Output

subject: {one line}
mode: {review | advisory}

--- LENS FINDINGS ---
correctness 🎯: blockers: {...} major: {...} minor: {...}
adversary 🗡️:   (same shape)
maintainer 🔧:  (same shape)
performance 🔥: (same shape or "skipped — scale not stated")
integration 🧩: (same shape)
contrarian 🎭:  position: {...} | objection: {...}

--- DISAGREEMENTS ---
- {lens A} X, {lens B} Y. Trade-off: {what}

--- VERDICT ⚖️ ---
decision: {SHIP | SHIP WITH FIXES | REWORK | REJECT}
confidence: {0-100, rounded to 10}
reasoning: {3-5 imperative lines}

top-3 actions:
1. ... 2. ... 3. ...

minority report: lens: {which} | position: {one line}

Hard rules

• Each lens runs independently; no lens reads another's emission first.
• Emit "none" when nothing found — never invent findings.
• Judge cannot downgrade a blocker; only the raising lens can retract.
• If ≥ 3 lenses emit blockers → verdict is REJECT regardless.
• Confidence rounds to 10s; no false precision.
• Performance lens skips if scale absent — ask, don't invent targets.
• Contrarian never votes; it reframes. Judge may elevate it to minority report.
• Input < 30 lines or < 3 paragraphs → refuse: "too small, use a single lens".
• Advisory mode: lenses recommend; judge picks one path AND names second-best.

Composes with

assumption-surface → advisory mode (interpret before review) goal-criteria → defines correctness lens target surgical-diff · simplicity-audit → pre-filters before council karpathy-coding → applies if council recommends code changes