Use cases
Where a council beats a chatbot.
A single assistant answers. A council decides — with adversarial pressure, parallel expertise, and a human holding the final call. Three workflows where that difference is the whole point.
Ship a feature with fewer blind spots
A single assistant confidently produces code that misses edge cases, security holes, and design debt. You catch them in review — or in production.
The Builder proposes, the Critic challenges, QA enumerates edge cases, and Security threat-models — before the diff ever reaches a human. You review a decision, not a guess.
- 1Convene a council and link the repository.
- 2Describe the feature to the Builder.
- 3Watch the Architect, QA, and Security weigh in on the same thread.
- 4Approve the converged proposal, or push back and iterate.
Make an architecture decision you can defend
Design choices get made in one head or one chat window, with no adversarial pressure and no record of why.
Independent experts argue the trade-offs on an immutable timeline. Every decision is traceable to the reasoning and the objections it survived.
- 1Pose the decision to the Architect and Critic.
- 2Let the council surface trade-offs and counter-proposals.
- 3Reach consensus with the reasoning recorded as events.
- 4Replay the whole session later to understand the 'why'.
Review a change from every angle at once
Human review is a bottleneck, and one reviewer can only hold so many concerns in their head at once.
Security, performance, correctness, and UX reviews run in parallel, each from a dedicated expert, with the human as the final decision-maker.
- 1Point the council at the branch or diff.
- 2Assign the reviewing roles you care about.
- 3Collect findings, ranked and de-duplicated.
- 4Merge with confidence, or request changes.
Convene a council for your own workflow.
Get started