84 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
84 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: paseo-committee
|
||
description: Form a committee of two high-reasoning agents to step back, do root cause analysis, and produce a plan. Use when stuck, looping, tunnel-visioning, or facing a hard planning problem.
|
||
user-invocable: true
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Committee Skill
|
||
|
||
Two agents from contrasting providers, fresh context, planning a solution in parallel. They stay alive for review after implementation.
|
||
|
||
The purpose is to step back, not double down. The committee may propose a completely different approach.
|
||
|
||
**User's additional context:** $ARGUMENTS
|
||
|
||
## Prerequisites
|
||
|
||
Read the **paseo** skill. Before choosing committee members, read `~/.paseo/orchestration-preferences.json` unless the user explicitly named providers in this request. Do not create committee agents until you have read it.
|
||
|
||
Contrast is the point of a committee, so pick across providers deliberately using the configured preferences rather than hardcoded defaults.
|
||
|
||
## Composition
|
||
|
||
Two members with different reasoning styles, selected from orchestration preferences:
|
||
|
||
- one planning/research-strength provider
|
||
- one contrasting high-reasoning provider
|
||
|
||
Override only when the user explicitly asks for different members.
|
||
|
||
## Hard rules
|
||
|
||
- **No edits.** Every prompt to a committee member ends with the no-edits suffix:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
This is analysis only. Do NOT edit, create, or delete any files. Do NOT write code.
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
- **Trust the wait.** Do not poll, send hurry-ups, or interrupt. GPT-5.4 can reason 15–30 minutes; Opus does extended thinking. Long waits mean it found something worth thinking about.
|
||
- **You are the middleman.** Drive plan → implement → review without yielding to the user, except for divergences that need their call.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 1: Plan
|
||
|
||
Write a problem-level prompt:
|
||
|
||
- High-level goal and acceptance criteria
|
||
- Constraints
|
||
- Symptoms (if a bug)
|
||
- What you tried and why it failed
|
||
- Explicit: "do root cause analysis"
|
||
- Explicit: "state assumptions, ask why three levels deep, check whether you're patching a symptom or removing the problem"
|
||
|
||
Create both agents in parallel via Paseo with `[Committee] <task>` titles and the same prompt. Wait for both — not just whichever finishes first.
|
||
|
||
Read both responses. Challenge them — do not accept at face value:
|
||
|
||
- "Why does <underlying thing> happen? Symptom or cause?"
|
||
- Verify any assumption the plan makes about the code.
|
||
- "What did you considered and reject?"
|
||
|
||
Send follow-ups until the plan addresses root cause.
|
||
|
||
Synthesize:
|
||
|
||
- Convergence → unified plan.
|
||
- Significant divergence → involve the user.
|
||
|
||
Confirm the merged plan with both members. Multi-turn until consensus.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 2: Implement
|
||
|
||
Default: implement yourself. If the user said **"delegate"**, launch one impl agent and pass the merged plan.
|
||
|
||
The committee stays clean — not involved in implementation.
|
||
|
||
## Phase 3: Review
|
||
|
||
Send the diff to the committee:
|
||
|
||
> Implementation is done. Review changes against the plan. Flag drift or missing pieces. <no-edits suffix>
|
||
|
||
Apply feedback yourself, or send to the impl agent. Repeat 2 → 3 until consensus.
|
||
|
||
After ~10 iterations without convergence, start a fresh committee with the full history of what was tried — the current committee's context may have drifted too far.
|