You are forming a committee to step back from the current problem and get fresh perspective.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionpaseo-committeeExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches paseo-committee from getpaseo/paseo and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate paseo-committee. Access via /paseo-committee in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
645
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
645
stars
You are forming a committee to step back from the current problem and get fresh perspective.
User's additional context: $ARGUMENTS
Load the Paseo skill first — it contains the CLI reference for all agent commands and waiting guidelines.
Two agents — Opus 4.6 (--thinking on) and GPT 5.4 (--thinking medium) — launched in parallel to plan a solution. Fresh context, no implementation baggage, proper root cause analysis.
They stay alive after planning for Phase 3 review — they hold only the plan, so they catch implementation drift.
The purpose is to step back, not to double down. The committee may propose a completely different approach.
You drive the full lifecycle: plan → implement → review. You are a middleman between the user and the committee. Do not yield back to the user until the cycle is complete. If the user needs to weigh in on a divergence, ask them — but don't stop the process.
Once you call paseo wait, trust the wait. Do not poll logs, read output early, send hurry-up messages, interrupt deep analysis, or give up because it's taking long.
GPT 5.4 can reason for 15–30 minutes. Opus does extended thinking. Long waits mean the agent found something worth thinking about. Let it finish.
If the CLI has a bug, the user will tell you.
Every prompt to a committee member — initial, follow-up, or review — must end with this suffix. They will start editing code if you don't.
NO_EDITS="This is analysis only. Do NOT edit, create, or delete any files. Do NOT write code."
All example prompts below include $NO_EDITS — always expand it.
Describe the overall problem, not just the immediate symptom:
prompt="We're trying to [high-level goal]. Constraints: [X, Y, Z]. Acceptance criteria: [A, B, C].
We've been stuck on this. Here's what we've tried and why it didn't work:
- [approach 1] — failed because [reason]
- [approach 2] — partially worked but [issue]
Step back from these attempts. Do root cause analysis — the fix might not be for [immediate symptom] at all, it might be structural.
Use the think-harder approach: state your assumptions, ask why at least 3 levels deep for each, and check whether you're patching a symptom or removing the problem. What's the right approach?
$NO_EDITS"
Same prompt to both, [Committee] prefix for identification:
opus_id=$(paseo run -d --mode bypassPermissions --provider claude/opus --thinking on --name "[Committee] Task description" "$prompt" -q)
gpt_id=$(paseo run -d --mode full-access --provider codex/gpt-5.4 --thinking medium --name "[Committee] Task description" "$prompt" -q)
Wait for both agents — not just the first one that finishes.
paseo wait "$opus_id"
paseo wait "$gpt_id"
paseo logs "$opus_id"
paseo logs "$gpt_id"
Do not accept output at face value. Use the think-harder framework to challenge their output. Before synthesizing:
paseo send "$opus_id" "You said [X]. Why does [underlying thing] happen in the first place? Are we patching a symptom? $NO_EDITS"
paseo wait "$opus_id"
paseo logs "$opus_id"
Keep pushing until the plan addresses the root cause.
Send the merged plan back for confirmation. Multi-turn if needed — keep going until consensus.
paseo send "$opus_id" "Merged plan: [plan]. Concerns? $NO_EDITS"
paseo send "$gpt_id" "Merged plan: [plan]. Concerns? $NO_EDITS"
Implement the plan yourself — unless the user said "delegate", in which case launch an implementer:
impl_id=$(paseo run -d --mode full-access --provider codex/gpt-5.4 --name "[Impl] Task description" "Implement the following plan end-to-end. [plan]" -q)
paseo wait "$impl_id"
Committee agents stay clean — not involved in implementation.
Send the committee the changes for review. They anchor against the plan and catch drift.
review_prompt="Implementation is done. Review changes against the plan. Flag drift or missing pieces. $NO_EDITS"
paseo send "$opus_id" "$review_prompt"
paseo send "$gpt_id" "$review_prompt"
paseo wait "$opus_id"
paseo wait "$gpt_id"
paseo logs "$opus_id"
paseo logs "$gpt_id"
Send committee feedback to the implementer (or apply yourself). Repeat Phase 2 → 3 until the committee confirms the implementation matches the plan.
After ~10 iterations without convergence, start a fresh committee with full context of what was tried — the current committee's context may have drifted too far.
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
JuliusBrussee/caveman
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
kostja94/marketing-skills
JuliusBrussee/caveman
dengineproblem/agents-monorepo
paseo-committee reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
We added paseo-committee from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Registry listing for paseo-committee matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
We added paseo-committee from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
paseo-committee reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
paseo-committee fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: paseo-committee is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
We added paseo-committee from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
paseo-committee has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
paseo-committee fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
showing 1-10 of 56