← 返回
未分类 中文

Council v2

Multi-model council review that spawns 3-5 independent AI reviewers and applies mechanical synthesis — votes decide, not orchestrator opinion. Use when you n...
Multi-model council review that spawns 3-5 independent AI reviewers and applies mechanical synthesis — votes decide, not orchestrator opinion. Use when you n...
zurbrick zurbrick 来源
未分类 clawhub v2.0.3 1 版本 100000 Key: 无需
★ 0
Stars
📥 658
下载
💾 0
安装
1
版本
#architecture#council#latest#multi-model#review#security

概述

Council v2

A hardened OpenClaw skill for multi-model council reviews.

It dispatches independent reviewers, collects structured JSON, and applies a

mechanical synthesis protocol so the final verdict is driven by votes and

critical findings — not orchestrator vibes.

Primary entrypoint: bash skills/council-v2/scripts/council.sh review [file]

When to Use

Use when a single model reviewing its own work is not enough:

  • Code review before merge or deployment
  • Plan review before committing resources
  • Architecture review for important technical decisions
  • Decision review when multiple plausible options exist
  • Security-sensitive or irreversible choices
  • Pre-flight review, adversarial critique, or second-opinion work

When Not to Use

Do not use for:

  • One-line fixes or trivial edits
  • Low-stakes decisions where overhead exceeds risk
  • Purely factual lookups with no judgment call
  • Work already reviewed recently with no material change

Council Shape

Two tiers are supported:

  • Standard — 3 reviewers for routine code, plan, and decision reviews
  • Full — 5 reviewers for high-stakes, security-sensitive, or irreversible choices

Tier selection heuristic

Use Standard when: routine code changes, internal plans, reversible decisions,

low blast radius. Use Full when: security-critical, production-facing architecture,

irreversible commitments, high cost of being wrong, or when you want maximum coverage.

When in doubt, start Standard. Escalate to Full if the Standard result is split or

if critical findings surface that need more perspectives.

Cost note

Full Council runs 5 model calls instead of 3. That is ~1.7x the token cost of Standard.

Use Full when the cost of a bad decision exceeds the cost of the extra API calls —

which for security, architecture, and irreversible choices, it almost always does.

Detailed role composition and synthesis rules live in:

  • references/review-types.md
  • references/role-prompts.md
  • references/synthesis-rules.md

Review Types

TypeTypical use
-------------------
codeSource files, scripts, patches, PR diffs
planProposals, project plans, rollout plans
architectureSystems design, infra decisions, workflows
decisionA/B/C choices with tradeoffs

Definitions: references/review-types.md

Quick Start

# Standard code review
bash skills/council-v2/scripts/council.sh review code src/auth.py

# Force full plan review
bash skills/council-v2/scripts/council.sh review plan proposal.md --tier full

# Architecture review from stdin
cat design.md | bash skills/council-v2/scripts/council.sh review architecture --tier full

# Decision review with options
bash skills/council-v2/scripts/council.sh review decision options.md --options "SQLite,Postgres,Cloud SQL"

# Emit orchestration plan as JSON
bash skills/council-v2/scripts/council.sh review code src/auth.py --format json

How It Works

  1. Loads content from file or stdin
  2. Selects Standard or Full tier
  3. Builds reviewer prompts from references/role-prompts.md
  4. Emits an orchestration plan suitable for sessions_spawn
  5. Collects reviewer JSON outputs
  6. Runs python3 scripts/synthesize.py ...
  7. Returns synthesis with mechanical result, minority report, and conditions

Interpreting Results

The synthesizer returns structured JSON and a meaningful exit code:

Exit codeMeaningWhat to do
--------------------------------
0Approve — clear majority, no criticalsShip it
1Reject or Blocked — majority rejected or a critical finding blockedAddress the critical findings or rethink the approach
2Approve with conditions — mixed or conditional majorityFix the flagged conditions, then re-review or proceed with documented risk
3Error — invalid input or synthesis failureCheck reviewer JSON for malformed output; see error handling below

Reading the synthesis output

  • mechanical_result: The vote-driven verdict. This is the answer.
  • critical_blocks: Any critical findings that auto-blocked approval. Address these first.
  • conditions: Aggregated recommendations from warning-level findings. These are your fix list.
  • minority_report: The strongest dissent from the majority. Read this even if you agree with the majority — it is often where the best insight lives.
  • anti_consensus_check: Fires on unanimous decisions. Treat the counterargument seriously.

Error Handling

Reviewer returns invalid JSON

synthesize.py validates every reviewer output against required fields. If a reviewer

returns malformed JSON, synthesis exits with code 3 and prints an error message.

What to do:

  1. Check the raw reviewer output for the failing model
  2. Re-run that single reviewer (the orchestration plan shows which models to dispatch)
  3. If the model consistently fails, substitute it — see model override flags below

Provider is down or times out

If a provider fails to respond, the review set will be incomplete. Run synthesis on

whatever outputs you have — a 2-of-3 Standard review is still useful. Note the missing

reviewer in your assessment.

Model override flags

Override any model at the command line:

bash skills/council-v2/scripts/council.sh review code src/auth.py \
 --opus claude-sonnet-4 \
 --gpt gpt-4.1 \
 --grok grok-3

Available flags: --opus, --gpt, --grok, --deepseek, --gemini

Model Diversity

The council's value comes from **different providers with different training data and

different biases** reviewing the same decision. The specific model versions (Opus,

GPT-5.4, Grok 4, etc.) matter less than the diversity. Swap in whatever top-tier

models you have access to — what matters is that they are not all from the same

provider.

Retrospectives

scripts/retro.sh generates a structured retrospective template for reviewing past

council decisions against actual outcomes.

# Review the 5 most recent decisions in a directory
bash skills/council-v2/scripts/retro.sh ./council-outputs/ 5

When to run retros

Run monthly, or after any decision where the outcome surprised you. The retro surfaces:

  • Which reviewers provided signal vs. noise
  • Whether critical findings were real or false alarms
  • Whether synthesis preserved minority views accurately
  • Prompt changes to consider for role-prompts.md

Feed retro findings back into references/role-prompts.md to calibrate the council.

Notes

  • Requires bash, python3, and OpenClaw reviewer dispatch capability
  • Model aliases can be overridden — see model override flags above
  • Synthesis rules are documented in references/synthesis-rules.md

References

  • references/review-types.md — review type definitions and tier recommendations
  • references/role-prompts.md — reviewer role prompts and shared output instructions
  • references/schema.md — JSON schemas for reviewer output and synthesis output
  • references/synthesis-rules.md — mechanical synthesis protocol and edge cases

版本历史

共 1 个版本

  • v2.0.3 当前
    2026-05-01 23:44 安全 安全

安全检测

腾讯云安全 (Keen)

安全,无风险
查看报告

腾讯云安全 (Sanbu)

安全,无风险
查看报告

🔗 相关推荐

ai-agent

Find Skills

guipi888
场景驱动+关键词双模式技能发现工具。当用户用自然语言描述场景/需求(如"我想做一个海报""帮我分析股票"),或明确说"安装技能/find skills/找个skill"时,自动从官方内置、本地已安装、SkillHub、虾评、GitHub、C
★ 1,490 📥 556,570
it-ops-security

Skill Sandbox

zurbrick
沙盒化ClawHub技能安装,自动安全扫描。使用场景:(1) 从ClawHub安装新技能,(2) 审计已安装技能
★ 0 📥 806
ai-agent

Agent Browser

rez0
用于 AI 代理的浏览器自动化 CLI。当用户需要与网站交互(包括浏览页面、填写表单、点击按钮、截图等)时使用。
★ 843 📥 324,286