ADR-CM-011: Council Feature
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Decision ID | ADR-CM-011 |
| Type | Child ADR |
| Parent ADR | ADR-CM-001 |
| Initiative | Campaign Mode |
| Proposed By | Chris Barlow |
| Date | 2026-02-14 |
| Status | Accepted |
WH(Y) Decision Statement
In the context of the gap between campaign setup and quest commitment — after /campaign-setup creates infrastructure, the user’s only option is to immediately start a quest, with no way to first understand the project from multiple perspectives,
facing users needing to understand their project’s state, strengths, and gaps before choosing a quest direction — particularly in unfamiliar codebases or when the right next step is unclear,
we decided for a /council command that sequentially invokes all six animal agents to independently analyse the project through their archetype lenses, followed by Simon synthesising findings into a consensus with prioritised next steps, persisted as .campaign/council-report.md,
and neglected parallel Task sub-agents (analysis invisible to user, loses the conversational feel), Gandalf-only analysis (loses diverse perspectives from six archetypes), and mandatory pre-quest Council (violates user agency — the Council must be optional),
to achieve a visible multi-perspective diagnostic where each animal speaks in character, a persistent synthesis artefact that can inform quest definition, and seamless integration with campaign setup as an on-ramp to quest commitment,
accepting that sequential animal invocation produces long output, the feature requires Six Animals to be installed, and the council report is overwritten on re-invocation (no history).
Context
Campaign Mode has a gap between setup and quest commitment. After /campaign-setup creates infrastructure (CLAUDE.md, .campaign/ directory), the user’s only transition is to start a quest — which immediately commits to a direction via Gandalf’s quest framing. There is no way to first survey the project from multiple perspectives before choosing what to work on.
The Council fills this gap: all six animal agents independently analyse the project repository through their archetype lenses (Bear: vision, Cat: risk, Owl: process, Puppy: opportunities, Rabbit: resources, Wolf: cohesion), then Simon synthesises their findings into a consensus with recommended next steps. The user can then optionally transition into quest definition with Gandalf, or take the analysis standalone.
This also addresses a bug in campaign-setup.md: Step 4 ends with a slash command reference (Run /start-quest) rather than proactive elicitation via AskUserQuestion, violating the pattern established in ADR-CM-008.
Options Considered
Option 1: Sequential In-Character Analysis (Selected)
Each animal speaks in the main conversation with speaker tags, followed by Simon’s synthesis. User sees the full diagnostic unfold.
Pros: Visible, engaging, conversational; user sees each perspective as it’s delivered; consistent with agent identity conventions Cons: Long sequential output; user must wait for all six analyses
Option 2: Parallel Sub-Agent Analysis (Rejected)
Launch six Task sub-agents in parallel, collect results, present a summary.
Why rejected: The analysis is invisible to the user. They see only the final summary, losing the engaging multi-perspective conversation. The Council’s value is partly in watching diverse viewpoints emerge.
Option 3: Gandalf-Only Analysis (Rejected)
Gandalf surveys the project and frames potential quest directions.
Why rejected: Gandalf is a mentor, not a diagnostic tool. The Council’s value comes from six distinct archetype lenses — Bear sees vision gaps that Cat sees as risks, Puppy sees opportunities that Owl structures. A single perspective, however wise, misses this diversity.
Option 4: Mandatory Pre-Quest Council (Rejected)
Require a Council session before any quest can begin.
Why rejected: Violates the User as Protagonist principle. The Council must be optional — some users know exactly what they want to work on and shouldn’t be forced through a diagnostic step.
Dependencies
| Relationship | ADR ID | Title | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extends | ADR-CM-008 | Proactive Elicitation | Council uses AskUserQuestion for transitions; fixes campaign-setup elicitation gap |
| Extends | ADR-CM-009 | Quest Entry Commands | Council provides an additional on-ramp between setup and quest commitment |
| Relates To | ADR-CM-001 | Campaign Mode Architecture | Adds optional pre-quest diagnostic to campaign lifecycle |
| Relates To | ADR-CM-010 | Quest State Tracking | Council report stored in .campaign/ alongside quest state |
References
| Reference ID | Title | Type | Location |
|---|---|---|---|
| REF-001 | Campaign Lifecycle Spec | Internal Spec | SPEC-CM-001-B |
| REF-002 | Campaign State Directory Spec | Internal Spec | SPEC-CM-006-B |
| REF-003 | Proactive Elicitation ADR | Internal ADR | ADR-CM-008 |
| REF-004 | Quest Entry Commands ADR | Internal ADR | ADR-CM-009 |
Governance
| Review Board | Date | Outcome | Action | Review Cadence | Next Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | – | – | – | Quarterly | – |
Status History
| Status | Approver | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed | Chris Barlow | 2026-02-14 |
| Accepted | Chris Barlow | 2026-02-14 |