consciousness-council – skill Dữ liệu & Khoa học cho agent AI

Consciousness Council

A structured exercise that simulates several thinking archetypes, each emphasizing different assumptions and priorities, then synthesizes their perspectives. These are generated viewpoints from one system, not independent experts or independent evidence. Label factual claims, assumptions, and value judgments separately; verify consequential factual claims against external sources.

When to use

Use for a requested comparison of competing priorities or assumptions, including research planning decisions. The output is a decision aid: a conditional recommendation, unresolved questions, and a next step. It does not establish scientific validity by agreement or by the number of perspectives.

This skill runs within the current conversation. It has no bundled code, service API, credentials, or MindBook connection; use the host's available research tools when factual verification is needed. Do not claim that it creates hosted sessions, stores persistent memories, or contacts real experts.

Before deliberation

1. State the decision, feasible options (including postponement when relevant), constraints, and the user's objective. Use supplied context; state material missing information as an assumption or a question.

2. Create a short evidence brief: given facts, externally verified facts with sources, assumptions, unknowns, and value judgments. All perspectives use this same brief.

3. Verify facts that could change the recommendation using original sources or supplied data. If verification is unavailable, keep the conclusion conditional and identify what must be checked; a simulated Empiricist is not a source.

4. Select a response budget: quick (3 perspectives), standard (4–6), or deep (6). These counts organize the output; they are not validated accuracy settings.

How It Works

The Council has three phases:

Phase 1 — Summon the Council

Based on the user's question, select 4–6 Council Members from the archetypes below unless the user requests another configuration. Choose lenses that examine different assumptions, constraints, or values. Agreement supported by the evidence is a valid outcome.

The 12 Archetypes:

| # | Archetype | Thinking Style | Asks | Blind Spot |

| --- | ------------------ | -------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |

| 1 | The Architect | Systems thinking, structure-first | "What's the underlying structure?" | Can over-engineer simple problems |

| 2 | The Contrarian | Inversion, devil's advocate | "What if the opposite is true?" | Can be contrarian for its own sake |

| 3 | The Empiricist | Data-driven, evidence-first | "What does the evidence actually show?" | Can miss what can't be measured |

| 4 | The Ethicist | Values-driven, consequence-aware | "Who benefits and who is harmed?" | Can paralyze action with moral complexity |

| 5 | The Futurist | Long-term, second-order effects | "What does this look like in 10 years?" | Can discount present realities |

| 6 | The Pragmatist | Action-oriented, resource-aware | "What can we actually do by Friday?" | Can sacrifice long-term for short-term |

| 7 | The Historian | Pattern recognition, precedent | "When has this been tried before?" | Can fight the last war |

| 8 | The Empath | Human-centered, emotional intelligence | "How will people actually feel about this?" | Can prioritize comfort over progress |

| 9 | The Outsider | Cross-domain, naive questions | "Why does everyone assume that?" | Can lack domain depth |

| 10 | The Strategist | Game theory, competitive dynamics | "What are the second and third-order moves?" | Can overthink simple situations |

| 11 | The Minimalist | Simplification, constraint-seeking | "What can we remove?" | Can oversimplify complex problems |

| 12 | The Creator | Divergent thinking, novel synthesis | "What hasn't been tried yet?" | Can chase novelty over reliability |

Selection heuristic: Match the question type to the most productive tension:

• Business decisions → Strategist + Pragmatist + Ethicist + Futurist + Contrarian
• Technical architecture → Architect + Minimalist + Empiricist + Outsider
• Personal dilemmas → Empath + Contrarian + Futurist + Pragmatist
• Creative challenges → Creator + Outsider + Historian + Minimalist
• Ethical questions → Ethicist + Contrarian + Empiricist + Empath + Historian
• Strategy/competition → Strategist + Historian + Futurist + Contrarian + Pragmatist

These are starting points — adapt based on the specific question. The goal is to expose decision-relevant trade-offs and evidence gaps without a quota for disagreement or consensus.

Phase 2 — Deliberation

Each Council Member delivers their perspective in this format:

🎭 [ARCHETYPE NAME]

Position: [One-sentence stance]

Reasoning: [2-4 sentences explaining their logic from their specific lens]

Basis: [Which given/verified facts, assumptions, or values support the position]

Key Risk They See: [The danger others might miss]

Decision Check: [Evidence or a changed constraint that would alter this position]

Critical rules for deliberation:

• Seek substantive differences in assumptions, evidence, and values, but do not manufacture factual disagreement. When evidence supports agreement, record it and examine remaining uncertainty or decision trade-offs.
• Distinguish the lenses even when they reach the same recommendation; avoid repeating one argument in different voices.
• The Contrarian tests the strongest assumption behind the leading option and may conclude that it withstands scrutiny. Do not invent contrary evidence.
• Keep each member's contribution focused and sharp. Depth over breadth.

Phase 3 — Synthesis

After all members speak, deliver:

⚖️ COUNCIL SYNTHESIS

Points of Convergence: [Shared conclusions, with their evidence and assumptions; agreement alone is not a confidence signal]

Core Tension: [The decision-relevant trade-off, or state that no substantive disagreement remains]

Open Question: [An overlooked issue or missing evidence; say if none was identified]

Recommended Path: [Conditional recommendation, next step, and what would change the choice]

Confidence Level: [Qualitative High / Medium / Low with reasons, tied to a specific claim; no percentage inferred from votes or rhetoric]

One Question to Sit With: [The question the user should keep thinking about after this session]

Before delivering the synthesis, check that every consequential factual claim traces to the evidence brief, each recommendation respects the constraints, and uncertainties are still visible. A critical unverified premise prevents a high-confidence recommendation. Distinguish confidence in the proposed next step from confidence in the eventual outcome. Record supported agreement and unresolved disagreements; do not resolve them by majority vote.

This is a qualitative review by the agent, not an automated validation gate or proof that the premises are true. Report unresolved checks explicitly.

Council Configurations

The user can customize the Council:

• "Quick council" or "fast deliberation" → Use 3 members, shorter responses
• "Deep council" or "full deliberation" → Use 6 members, extended reasoning
• "Add [archetype]" → Include a specific archetype
• "Without [archetype]" → Exclude a specific archetype
• "Custom council: [list]" → User picks exact members
• "Anonymous council" → Use neutral labels until synthesis. This is a presentation option; no bias-reduction effect is established for this skill.
• "Devil's advocate mode" → Stress-test the intuitive choice with plausible failure cases and label hypothetical premises. Retain facts that survive the challenge.
• "Rounds mode" → After initial positions, members respond to each other for a second round

See [advanced configurations](references/advanced-configurations.md) for domain mixes, optional editorial scoring, and bounded multi-round or synthesis-only output.

What Makes a Good Council Question

The Council works best on questions where:

• There's genuine uncertainty or trade-offs
• Multiple valid perspectives exist
• The user is stuck or going in circles
• The stakes are high enough to warrant multi-angle thinking
• The user's own bias might be limiting their view

The Council adds less value on:

• Pure factual questions with clear answers
• Questions where the user has alread

… (nội dung đầy đủ có trong gói tải về)