Conclave Agents

The Conclave consists of three specialized deliberation agents that provide constitutional oversight and multi-perspective analysis for strategic decisions.

Architecture

agents/conclave/
├── critico-metodologico/
│   ├── AGENT.md              # Agent definition
│   └── SOUL.md               # Voice and personality
├── advogado-do-diabo/
│   ├── AGENT.md
│   └── SOUL.md
├── sintetizador/
│   ├── AGENT.md
│   └── SOUL.md
├── CRITIC.md             # Extended critic framework
├── DEVILS-ADVOCATE.md    # Contrarian techniques
├── SYNTHESIZER.md        # Integration methodology
└── README.md

Constitutional Foundation

All conclave deliberations are governed by four core principles:

Principle 1: Empiricism

Decisions based on DATA, not opinions or intuitions.Requirement: Every claim must cite sources and concrete numbers.

Principle 2: Pareto (80/20)

Seek the 20% of actions that generate 80% of results.Requirement: Identify highest-leverage options with minimal effort.

Principle 3: Inversion

Before asking “what to do”, ask “what would cause failure”.Requirement: Explicitly state risks for each option.

Principle 4: Antifragility

Prefer options that BENEFIT from volatility and uncertainty.Requirement: Identify which option gets stronger under stress.

Hierarchy: CONSTITUTION > PROTOCOLS > AGENT INSTRUCTIONS

Agents

Crítico Metodológico (Methodological Critic)

Role: Analytical Guardian Perspective: Rigorous analysis, detail-oriented, process-focused Activation: Phase 2 of /conclave command

Responsibilities

Quality Assessment

Score debate quality on 0-100 scale:

Premissas declaradas (0-20): Are assumptions explicit?
Evidencias rastreaveis (0-20): Can evidence be traced to sources?
Lógica consistente (0-20): Is reasoning logically sound?
Cenarios alternativos (0-20): Were alternatives considered?
Conflitos resolvidos (0-20): Were contradictions addressed?

Gap Identification

Identify critical gaps:

Missing data that would change the decision
Unstated assumptions
Logical leaps
Insufficient scenario analysis

Recommendation

Provide one of three recommendations:

APROVAR: Quality ≥ 80, proceed with decision
REVISAR: Quality 60-79, address gaps before deciding
REJEITAR: Quality < 60, restart with better foundation

Output Format

═══════════════════════════════════════
AVALIAÇÃO DO CRÍTICO
═══════════════════════════════════════

SCORE DE QUALIDADE: 75/100

Breakdown:
• Premissas declaradas:      16/20
• Evidencias rastreaveis:    18/20
• Lógica consistente:        14/20
• Cenarios alternativos:     15/20
• Conflitos resolvidos:      12/20

GAPS CRÍTICOS:
• No CAC data for last 6 months
• Commission impact on seller motivation unstudied
• Competitive commission rates not benchmarked

RECOMENDAÇÃO: REVISAR

Motivo: Faltam dados essenciais sobre impacto no CAC e benchmarks competitivos.

Location: agents/conclave/critico-metodologico/

Advogado do Diabo (Devil’s Advocate)

Role: Contrarian Challenger Perspective: Challenge assumptions, identify blind spots, stress-test logic Activation: Phase 3 of /conclave command

Responsibilities

Challenge Weakest Premise

Identify and attack the most fragile assumption.Output:

Which premise is weakest?
Why is it vulnerable?
What happens if it’s wrong?

Surface Undiscussed Risk

Find the elephant in the room.Output:

Risk description
Probability estimate
Impact severity
Why it wasn’t discussed

Regret Scenario

Paint realistic worst-case picture.Output:

12-month forward scenario
What went wrong?
Early warning signs that were ignored

Ignored Alternative

Present option not on the table.Output:

Alternative approach
Why it merits consideration
Pros/cons vs current recommendation

Output Format

═══════════════════════════════════════
ADVOGADO DO DIABO
═══════════════════════════════════════

PREMISSA MAIS FRÁGIL:
"Increasing commission will directly increase close rate"

Por que é frágil:
- No historical data supporting this correlation
- Assumes money is primary motivator (ignores mastery, autonomy, purpose)
- Ignores possibility of attracting wrong talent profile

RISCO PRINCIPAL NÃO DISCUTIDO:
Canão dos mercenários: Higher commission may attract sellers who optimize for
short-term comp over customer fit, damaging brand and increasing churn.

Probabilidade: 40% | Impacto: Alto

CENÁRIO DE ARREPENDIMENTO (12 meses):
March 2027: We increased commission to 15%. Initial excitement, but after 6
months we see:
- Close rate unchanged (still 22%)
- CAC up 23% due to higher comp
- Customer satisfaction down (rushed sales)
- Top performers left (culture shift to transactional)
- Now stuck with 15% as "market rate"

ALTERNATIVA IGNORADA:
Instead of raising commission, invest in:
1. Sales training (NEPQ, objection handling)
2. Better lead quality (improve qualification)
3. Sales enablement tools

Custo similar, but builds capability vs dependency on comp.

Location: agents/conclave/advogado-do-diabo/

Sintetizador (Synthesizer)

Role: Integration Architect Perspective: Unify perspectives, find consensus, create actionable recommendation Activation: Phase 4 of /conclave command (final)

Responsibilities

Integrate Feedback

Synthesize debate + critic + advocate into unified view.Process:

Acknowledge valid points from all sides
Identify areas of consensus
Resolve contradictions
Incorporate critic’s gaps
Address advocate’s risks

Generate Recommendation

Clear, actionable recommendation with modifications.Components:

Core decision
Modifications based on feedback
Why this is the best path forward

Assess Confidence

Quantify confidence in recommendation.Scale:

90-100%: High confidence, strong consensus
70-89%: Good confidence, minor gaps
60-69%: Acceptable confidence, monitor closely
Below 60%: Insufficient confidence, escalate to human

Risk Mitigation

For each residual risk, provide mitigation strategy.Format:

Risk: [description]
Mitigation: [concrete action]
Owner: [responsible party]

Next Steps

Actionable roadmap with owners and deadlines.

Reversal Criteria

Conditions that would invalidate this decision.Format: “IF [condition] THEN [action]“

Output Format

═══════════════════════════════════════
SÍNTESE FINAL
═══════════════════════════════════════

DECISÃO RECOMENDADA:
Pilotar 15% de comissão com top 20% de closers durante Q2, condicionado a:
1. Mínimo 25% de close rate (vs atual 22%)
2. NPS mantido acima de 8.5
3. Comparação com grupo controle (10% commission)

MODIFICAÇÕES APLICADAS:
• De aumento geral → para piloto focado (resposta ao Crítico)
• Adicionado grupo controle (resposta ao Advogado)
• Métricas de qualidade (NPS) para evitar vendas pressionadas

CONFIANÇA: 78%

Justificativa:
- Aborda lacunas do Crítico (dados via piloto)
- Mitiga riscos do Advogado (grupo controle, métricas de qualidade)
- Permite aprendizado antes de escalar
- Reversível se métricas não atingidas

RISCOS RESIDUAIS:
• Risco: Piloto pode criar resentimento entre closers não incluídos
  Mitigação: Comunicar critérios transparentes + caminho para inclusão
  Responsável: CRO

• Risco: 3 meses pode ser curto para dados conclusivos
  Mitigação: Estender se inconcluso, mas revisar semanalmente
  Responsável: CFO

PRÓXIMOS PASSOS:
1. Definir critérios top 20% - Responsável: CRO - Prazo: 2026-03-15
2. Estruturar métricas de tracking - Responsável: CFO - Prazo: 2026-03-20
3. Comunicar piloto ao time - Responsável: CRO - Prazo: 2026-04-01
4. Kick-off piloto Q2 - Responsável: CRO + CFO - Prazo: 2026-04-01

CRITÉRIOS DE REVERSÃO:
SE close rate do piloto < 23% após 6 semanas ENTÃO pausar e reavaliar
SE NPS cair abaixo de 8.0 ENTÃO encerrar piloto imediatamente
SE custo por cliente aumentar > 15% ENTÃO reconsiderar continuação

Location: agents/conclave/sintetizador/

Workflow

Phase Sequence

Phase 0: Constitutional Foundation

Invoke the four core principles.All agents must ground their analysis in these principles.

Phase 1: Debate

Relevant cargo agents discuss the question.Duration: Until natural conclusion or timeoutOutput: Multi-perspective debate log

Phase 2: Crítico Metodológico

Methodological quality assessment.Output: Quality score + gaps + recommendation (APROVAR/REVISAR/REJEITAR)

Phase 3: Advogado do Diabo

Challenge assumptions and surface risks.Output: Weakest premise + undiscussed risk + regret scenario + alternative

Phase 4: Sintetizador

Integrate all perspectives into unified recommendation.Output: Decision + confidence + risks + next steps + reversal criteria

Decision Logic

if synthesizer.confidence >= 60:
    status = "RECOMMENDATION_READY"
    output = synthesizer.recommendation
else:
    status = "INCONCLUSIVE"
    output = "Escalate to human decision"
    present_options = [
        {"option": "A", "trade_offs": "...", "supporters": ["CRO"]},
        {"option": "B", "trade_offs": "...", "supporters": ["CFO"]},
        {"option": "C", "trade_offs": "Gather more data", "supporters": []}
    ]

Usage

Command

/conclave "Should we increase closer commission from 10% to 15%?"

Programmatic

from core.workflows import execute_workflow

result = execute_workflow(
    workflow_id="wf-conclave",
    inputs={
        "query": "Should we increase closer commission from 10% to 15%?",
        "context": {"current_rate": 0.10, "proposed_rate": 0.15}
    }
)

print(f"Confidence: {result['confidence']}%")
print(f"Recommendation: {result['recommendation']}")

Anti-Patterns

No Recursive Loops: Council runs ONCE per query. If confidence < 60%, escalate to human. Do not re-run the council.

No Voting: The Synthesizer does not average positions. Integration means finding a unified path, not majority rule.

No Positional Advocacy: The Crítico evaluates process, not merit. The Advogado challenges, not confirms. Neither advocates for an outcome.

Agent Files

Each agent has two core files:

AGENT.md

Agent definition with:

Role and responsibilities
Execution protocol
Output format
Quality standards

SOUL.md

Voice and personality:

Communication style
Tone (formal, direct, diplomatic)
Signature phrases
Behavioral traits

Example (Crítico):

# SOUL: Crítico Metodológico

Voice: Precise, exacting, data-driven
Tone: Firm but fair, never personal
Signature: "Show me the evidence"

Behavioral Traits:
- Demands rigor in reasoning
- Intolerant of logical leaps
- Values transparency over consensus
- Questions everything, trusts data

Command Reference

Core Modules

Agents

Conclave Agents

Conclave Agents

Architecture

Constitutional Foundation

Principle 1: Empiricism

Principle 2: Pareto (80/20)

Principle 3: Inversion

Principle 4: Antifragility

Agents

Crítico Metodológico (Methodological Critic)

Responsibilities

Output Format

Advogado do Diabo (Devil’s Advocate)

Responsibilities

Output Format

Sintetizador (Synthesizer)

Responsibilities

Output Format

Workflow

Phase Sequence

Decision Logic

Usage

Command

Programmatic

Anti-Patterns

Agent Files

AGENT.md

SOUL.md

See Also

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Command Reference

Core Modules

Agents

​Conclave Agents

​Architecture

​Constitutional Foundation

Principle 1: Empiricism

Principle 2: Pareto (80/20)

Principle 3: Inversion

Principle 4: Antifragility

​Agents

​Crítico Metodológico (Methodological Critic)

​Responsibilities

​Output Format

​Advogado do Diabo (Devil’s Advocate)

​Responsibilities

​Output Format

​Sintetizador (Synthesizer)

​Responsibilities

​Output Format

​Workflow

​Phase Sequence

​Decision Logic

​Usage

​Command

​Programmatic

​Anti-Patterns

​Agent Files

​AGENT.md

​SOUL.md

​See Also

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Conclave Agents

Architecture

Constitutional Foundation

Agents

Crítico Metodológico (Methodological Critic)

Responsibilities

Output Format

Advogado do Diabo (Devil’s Advocate)

Responsibilities

Output Format

Sintetizador (Synthesizer)

Responsibilities

Output Format

Workflow

Phase Sequence

Decision Logic

Usage

Command

Programmatic

Anti-Patterns

Agent Files

AGENT.md

SOUL.md

See Also