| description | Use when the user asks to "call a quorum" or "assemble a quorum" | |
|---|---|---|
| argument-hint |
|
Derive TOPIC from $ARGUMENTS and conversation context.
-
Derive candidates. From TOPIC, identify what intellectual traditions, disciplines, or specific thinkers would create productive friction on this subject.
-
Present candidates and team size using
AskUserQuestion— two questions in one call:- Thinkers (multi-select): 3 individual thinkers that genuinely clash on TOPIC. 1-line description per option. Do not group or cluster — present single people.
- Team size: options 3, 2, 1. Header: "Team size". Recommend 3 unless the topic is narrow.
- Clustering: "mixed" (tension within each team) or "aligned" (like-minded teams, tension between teams). Recommend mixed.
-
Extrapolate to 4 teams. From the user's selections (and any they typed), fill out 4 teams of the chosen size. Compose teams according to the clustering choice.
-
Present the full roster — all 4 teams and members — then confirm via
AskUserQuestion:- Yes — dispatch as shown. Annotations: additional instructions for the agents.
- Reroll — re-extrapolate teams. Annotations: what to change.
- No — abort.
-
Dispatch 4 background agents in parallel (all in a single message). Every agent receives the same context as each other:
- A standalone framing of TOPIC with enough context for the agent to say something useful back to this conversation
- Its team members by name only
Instruction to each agent: argue in character toward a convergent insight. Do not use any tools. Output: core disagreement, where each thinker lands, convergent insight.
Use
subagent_type: "general-purpose",run_in_background: true, andmodel: "opus"for each agent. Name each agent after its team members (e.g. "Dijkstra + Metz"). -
As agents complete, report each team's results. After all 4 finish, synthesize a convergence table: what the teams agree on, where they diverge, and the sharpest insight that emerged.