explainx.ainewsletter3.5k
TrendingNewsPathwaysSkills
Pricing
explainx.ai

Upskill in AI — 16 free pathways, live workshops & bootcamps, and 50+ courses from practitioners. Plus the skills, tools, and MCP servers to practice on.

follow us

corporate training

support@explainx.ai

get started

Find your pathTake Free Evaluation

learn

pathways — start freeworkshopsbootcampscoursescertificationsmock testsexplainx universitycorporate traininglearn skills & mcp

discover

skillsmcp serversexplainx mcptoolsagentsllmsdesignsdictionaryagi trackerranks

company

aboutvisionmissionteaminstructorscommunityhackathonscareers

content

daily AI newsstate of AI — live resultsblogreleasespromptsgeneratorsresource libraryfor LLMsexplainx.ai kids

solutions

all solutionsdeveloper upskillingmarketing upskillingproduct manager upskillingleadership upskilling

newsletter · weekly

Get AI news, tools, and insights in your inbox.

supportcontactprivacytermsdata rightshow we create contentsubmission guidelines

© 2026 AISOLO Technologies Pvt Ltd

On this page

  • TL;DR
  • Why a Council Instead of One Prompt?
  • The 18 Council Members
  • Deliberation Modes
  • Multi-Provider Auto-Routing
  • The 7-Step Protocol (Full Mode)
  • Install and First Run
  • When to Use Council vs Other Tools
  • Limitations
  • Related Reading
← Back to blog

explainx / blog

Council of High Intelligence: 18 AI Personas Deliberate Your Hardest Decisions in Claude Code

Council of High Intelligence v1.1.0 runs 18 intellectual personas — Aristotle, Feynman, Kahneman, Torvalds — across Claude, OpenAI, Gemini, and Ollama with /council in Claude Code. Full, quick, and duo modes with anti-groupthink gates.

Jul 2, 2026·5 min read·Yash Thakker
Council of High IntelligenceClaude CodeMulti-LLMDecision MakingAI AgentsPrompt Engineering
go deep
Council of High Intelligence: 18 AI Personas Deliberate Your Hardest Decisions in Claude Code

One frontier model answering "Should we open-source our agent framework?" gives you one fluent opinion dressed as certainty.

Council of High Intelligence (~2.8k GitHub stars, v1.1.0) runs the opposite play: 18 intellectual personas — Aristotle, Socrates, Feynman, Kahneman, Torvalds, Taleb, Munger — deliberate across multiple LLM providers and return a verdict that leads with what they cannot resolve.

One command in Claude Code: /council.

Weekly digest3.5k readers

Catch up on AI

Curated AI updates on agents, skills, and MCP — delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe anytime.


TL;DR

table · 2 cols
Repo0xNyk/council-of-high-intelligence
LicenseCC0 (public domain dedication)
Members18 council agents with polarity pairs
Command/council [question] in Claude Code or Codex
ModesFull (3 rounds) · Quick (--quick) · Duo (--duo)
ProvidersAuto: Claude, Codex, Gemini, Ollama, NVIDIA NIM, Cursor CLI
Install./install.sh (Claude) · ./install.sh --codex
Latestv1.1.0 — weighted tie-breaking tally (May 2026)

Why a Council Instead of One Prompt?

table · 2 cols
Single LLMCouncil
One reasoning path3–18 independent analyses
Hidden disagreementCross-examination round
Confident wrong answersProblem Restate Gate — reframes question before analysis
Consensus theaterDissent quotas — steelman opposing views if over 70% agree early
Answers everythingVerdict opens with Unresolved Questions

The design targets architecture decisions, open-source vs proprietary, pricing models, acquisition offers, and build vs buy — questions where being wrong is expensive.

Compare to OpenRouter Fusion, which ensembles frontier models in the cloud for research. Council is local skill orchestration in Claude Code with persona-specific system prompts and deliberation protocol enforcement.


The 18 Council Members

Each member is a Claude Code subagent with a named intellectual tradition:

table · 4 cols
AgentFigureDomainPolarity
council-aristotleAristotleCategorizationClassifies everything
council-socratesSocratesAssumption destructionQuestions everything
council-feynmanFeynmanFirst principlesRefuses unexplained complexity
council-torvaldsLinus TorvaldsPragmatic engineeringShip it or shut up
council-kahnemanDaniel KahnemanCognitive biasYour thinking is the first error
council-talebNassim TalebTail riskDesign for the tail
council-mungerCharlie MungerInversionWhat guarantees failure?
council-meadowsDonella MeadowsSystems thinkingFix the system, not the symptom
…Musashi, Machiavelli, Lao Tzu, Watts, Karpathy, Sutskever, Ada, Aurelius, Sun Tzu, Rams……

Polarity pairs are deliberate counterweights — e.g. Socrates destroys assumptions while Feynman rebuilds from first principles. Duo mode pairs them directly.

Default model tiers per member (opus vs sonnet) balance cost and depth; auto-routing spreads members across providers when Codex, Gemini, or Ollama are installed.


Deliberation Modes

Full mode (default)

Three rounds: independent analysis → cross-examination → final positions, then verdict synthesis.

snippet
/council Should we open-source our agent framework?
/council --triad strategy What's our competitive moat?

Quick mode

Two rounds — no cross-examination. For smaller calls:

snippet
/council --quick Should we add caching here?

Duo mode

Two-member dialectic via polarity pairs:

snippet
/council --duo Should we use microservices or monolith?
/council --duo --members torvalds,ada Is this abstraction worth it?

20 predefined triads bundle three members for domains like strategy, shipping, and safety.


Multi-Provider Auto-Routing

The council detects installed providers and assigns members without manual YAML (unless you override):

table · 3 cols
ProviderDetectionExec
Anthropic (Claude)nativesubagent
OpenAICodex CLIcodex exec
GoogleGemini CLIgemini -p
Ollamalocalollama run
NVIDIA NIMNVIDIA_API_KEYOpenAI-compatible API
Cursorcursor-agentheadless ask mode

Hard rule: polarity pairs land on different providers when possible — so Socrates and Feynman aren't the same model wearing different hats.

Flags:

  • --dry-route — print routing table without running
  • --no-auto-route — Claude-only
  • --models path/to/yaml — manual seat allocation

Useful alongside OmniRoute if you want local gateway fallback while council members hit different upstream models.


The 7-Step Protocol (Full Mode)

  1. Provider routing — assign members to models
  2. Problem Restate Gate — each member reframes the question; if 3 restate differently, the question was wrong
  3. Independent analysis — no peeking at peers
  4. Cross-examination — challenge claims
  5. Enforcement scan — dissent quotas, novelty gates, counterfactual prompts
  6. Final positions — updated after challenge
  7. Verdict synthesis — Unresolved Questions and Recommended Next Steps first

v1.1.0 improved tie-breaking — counted weighted tally instead of prose impression.


Install and First Run

bash
git clone https://github.com/0xNyk/council-of-high-intelligence.git
cd council-of-high-intelligence
./install.sh              # Claude Code
./install.sh --codex      # Claude + Codex skills

Restart Claude Code, then:

snippet
/council Should we accept this acquisition offer?
/council --quick Should we release today?
/council --duo monolith vs microservices for our stage?

Validation: ./scripts/council-simulation-checklist.sh · Demo pack in repo.

Requirements: Claude Code CLI (or Codex for Codex skill). Optional: Codex, Gemini CLI, Ollama, Cursor CLI, NVIDIA API key for multi-provider diversity.


When to Use Council vs Other Tools

table · 2 cols
ToolBest for
CouncilStrategic decisions, architecture, product tradeoffs, pre-mortems
OpenRouter FusionDeep research with web search + multi-model judge
OmniRouteRouting coding traffic across 231 providers + compression
Loop engineeringAutonomous implementation loops, not deliberation
Single Fable 5 sessionShipping code fast — not boardroom debate

Council is decision infrastructure, not a replacement for coding agents.


Limitations

  • Latency and cost — full mode with 18 members is expensive; use --quick, --duo, or --triad
  • Still LLM theater if misused — personas don't guarantee wisdom; protocol reduces groupthink, not stupidity
  • Provider detection varies — missing CLIs fall back to Claude-only
  • CC0 — no warranty; fork and adapt freely

Related Reading

  • OmniRoute — Local AI Gateway for Claude Code
  • OpenRouter Fusion — Multi-Model Panel API
  • Andrew Ng's Three Loops for 0-to-1 Products
  • What Is Loop Engineering?
  • Premortem Agent Skill — Risk Review
Weekly digest3.5k readers

Catch up on AI

Curated AI updates on agents, skills, and MCP — delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe anytime.

Spotted something out of date? Let us know.
Yash Thakker

Written by

Yash Thakker

Yash is an AI expert with over 300K learners. Join his workshops →

Related posts

Aug 15, 2026

Why Does Claude Opus 5 Feel Worse to Work With? The HN Debate

"Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?" hit 778 points and 717 comments on Hacker News this week. The original post's theory: reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards trains models to commit to an answer instead of pausing to ask, and that trade-off shows up as a model that makes bold assumptions instead of checking them. explainx.ai breaks down the thesis, the recurring complaints from the thread, and how to prompt around it in Claude Code.

Aug 11, 2026

"Humanising LLM Outputs Is Dumb" — The Case for Rendering at the Boundary

Kuber Mehta's essay "Humanising LLM Outputs is Dumb" hit 155 points on Hacker News with a specific claim: style instructions like ADHD-mode or Simplified Technical English are not post-processing, they are part of the work, and the compression they force is lossy. The 91-comment thread produced both the strongest supporting evidence and the sharpest counterexample.

Aug 7, 2026

Why Developers Say Claude Opus 5 Over-Engineers Simple Tasks

A widely-upvoted r/ClaudeAI thread from August 6, 2026 crystallized a complaint builders had been trading for weeks — Claude Opus 5 writing its own elaborate briefs, then executing far past the original ask. explainx.ai breaks down the specific complaints and the six workaround patterns practitioners are actually using.