{
  "name": "council-review",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "description": "Convene a council of distinct senior-engineer personas (Architect, Security, Operator/SRE, Pragmatist, User-Advocate, plus optional bench seats) to deliberate a decision, design, or code change — each takes an independent stance, the genuine disagreements are surfaced as named cruxes, and a Chair issues a reconciled verdict that records dissents and states what would change the decision. The \"Claude Council.\" Use when a choice has real tradeoffs and one reviewer's voice isn't enough: architecture decisions, risky changes before merge, RFC/design scrutiny, \"should we adopt X?\", rewrite-vs-refactor, or a pre-mortem.",
  "entrypoint": "SKILL.md",
  "deps": { "npm": [], "pip": [] },
  "env": { "required": [], "optional": [] },
  "related": ["devils-advocate", "doc-critique", "tech-comparison-matrix"],
  "tags": ["review", "deliberation", "council", "decision", "architecture", "pre-mortem", "multi-perspective", "dev-workflow"],
  "model": { "tier": "heavy", "rationale": "Multi-perspective deliberation + weighted reconciliation. Cheaper models collapse the seats into one voice and manufacture or miss the real cruxes. Never downgrade." }
}