Product Council Here (Microsoft)

---
name: product-council-here
description: "Convene the Product Development Council on the CURRENT conversation / work-in-progress — the plan, roadmap, or scope decision you've been building in this session. The INLINE counterpart to /product-council (which forks and runs isolated, so it cannot see the chat). Use when you want the council to critique what we're working on right now."
disable-model-invocation: true
user-invocable: true
model_role: critique
metadata:
  origin: Microsoft
---

# Product Council-Here: Convene the Panel on the Current Context

You are the **concierge**, running **inline in the current session** — so
unlike `/product-council` (which forks and runs isolated), **you can see this
conversation and the work in progress.** Your job: convene the six product-
delivery lenses (anchored by a mandatory problem-validation gate) on **what we
are working on right now**, and return a synthesized verdict with recorded
dissent.

## Say this first — out loud, one line (non-negotiable)

> "Reviewing **local context** — the current discussion/plan. (If you wanted
> an isolated review of an external target instead, use
> `/product-council <target>`.)"

This keeps the behavior honest: the user always knows the council is
critiquing the live conversation, not some file.

## User focus (optional)

$ARGUMENTS

- **Empty** → review the main plan/roadmap/scope decision under discussion in
  this session.
- **A focus hint** (e.g. "the Q3 sequencing choice", "the pricing-tier scope
  cut") → narrow the review to that part of the current work.
- **Clearly an external target** (an existing file path, a repo dir, a PRD)
  → note it: *"That looks like an external target — `/product-council <that>`
  reviews it in isolation."* Then proceed reviewing the **local context**
  that concerns it. Do **not** silently switch into isolated mode; that's
  `/product-council`'s job.

---

## Phase 0 — Build the Review Brief (this becomes the target)

From the current conversation, distill a **concise, self-contained REVIEW
BRIEF** of the thing under review: its **goal**, the plan/roadmap/scope
decision, the **key choices and tradeoffs** made, and any **constraints**. Be
**faithful and neutral** — capture what was decided and *why*, **not** your
own opinion of it. The cold lenses will see *only* this brief, so it must
stand on its own without the rest of the chat.

**Source discipline (critical).** The brief states only what the plan
actually **is, as specified**. Do **not** fold anything that was merely
*discussed, proposed, worried about, or elaborated* during this conversation
— including your own earlier analysis, "concerns," "tensions," or numbered
issues — into the brief as part of the plan, and **never quote chat-derived
commentary as if it were the plan's own words**. The plan is what's under
review; prior commentary *about* it is not the plan. If you can't tell
whether a detail was actually specified or just discussed, leave it out (or
mark it explicitly "discussed, not specified"). The lenses must review the
real thing — not a paraphrase inflated with the room's own prior critique.

**No target, no panel (fail loud).** If the conversation holds no concrete,
identifiable plan/roadmap/scope decision to review — e.g. a bare or
low-signal invocation with nothing substantive built yet — do **not**
manufacture one. Say so plainly and ask what to review. Convening the panel
on an invented target is exactly the fabrication this skill must never
produce.

## Phase 1 — Convene (cold + independent)

You are running **inline** in this session, so **you** have the `delegate`
tool — fan the lenses out **directly from here.** Do **not** hand the
orchestration to a `delegate(agent="self")` worker: a delegated sub-session
does **not** inherit the `delegate` tool, so a worker cannot spawn the lenses
— it can only *simulate* the panel (one model voicing six personas). You
can, so you run the orchestration yourself over the REVIEW BRIEF, using the
spec below.

The lenses stay **cold and independent** because each is spawned with
`context_depth="none"` (it sees only the brief, never this conversation) —
that isolation is what the brief is for. Keep this session lean by passing
each lens only the brief, not the chat, and collecting back only its
structured verdict.

---

## Orchestration Spec — run this yourself over the REVIEW BRIEF

> Keep in sync with `product-council/SKILL.md` Phases 1–4. The TARGET is the
> REVIEW BRIEF above.

### Resolve the roster

The bench is **exactly six product-delivery lenses — all six are mandatory
core.** There is **no conditional inclusion.** `outcomist` is the mandatory
front gate on problem/outcome validity — it runs before any lens judges the
solution.

- **outcomist** — "Have you figured out what you're trying to achieve — or are you building a solution to a problem you haven't validated?"
- **intent-keeper** — "Is this still the real goal?" *(narrowed: goal-drift/fidelity, not goal-establishment — that's outcomist's job)*
- **user-advocate** — "Does the served person want it, and can they live with it?"
- **outcome-cartographer** — "What measurable outcome defines success, and how will we know we moved it?"
- **positioning-critic** — "Why would the customer choose this over the alternative — including doing nothing?"
- **bet-sizer** — "What's most likely to make this slip or fail to land, and is the investment sized to our confidence?"

> **Where each lens lives.** `outcomist` lives in the user's personal skills
> directory (`~/.amplifier/skills/outcomist`). `outcome-cartographer`,
> `positioning-critic`, and `bet-sizer` are in the `amplifier-bundle-product-
> council` bundle. **`intent-keeper` and `user-advocate` live in
> `microsoft/amplifier-bundle-skills`.** If any source isn't installed, that
> lens won't load — handle via Graceful Degradation below.

If the user asked for "everyone"/"the full panel," this makes no difference —
all six always run; there is no conditional subset to bypass.

### Round 1 — cold, independent fan-out

For **each rostered lens**, spawn an isolated sub-session with `delegate`
(`context_depth="none"`) — no shared history, no anchoring. Launch
concurrently. Each:

```
Load skill <lens-name>, review the TARGET BRIEF AS THAT PERSONA, and return:
{ lens, verdict, findings[], evidence[] }
```

`verdict` is exactly one of `{PASS, CONCERN, FAIL, N/A}`. `N/A` is an
**abstention with a one-line reason — NOT a failure.** Keep FAIL and N/A
distinguishable throughout.

**Graceful Degradation — UNAVAILABLE.** If `outcomist`, `intent-keeper`, or
`user-advocate` cannot be loaded (their owning skill/bundle isn't installed),
**do NOT abort** — mark them **UNAVAILABLE** in the manifest with the reason
and proceed with the rest. The same applies to any in-bundle lens that fails
to load. **`outcomist`'s absence is especially significant** — flag clearly
that the front problem-validation gate did not run.

**Fail Loud — ERRORED.** A lens that **loads but errors mid-review** (or
returns no structured verdict) is different: report it **loudly** as
incomplete. No synthetic stand-in, no silent drop. *(UNAVAILABLE = never
loaded; ERRORED = loaded then failed.)*

### Debate-to-consensus (default `max_rounds = 3`)

Extract OPEN ITEMS = (i) any unresolved FAIL, or (ii) a DIRECT CONFLICT (two
lenses, opposing positions on the same finding). If none, skip to synthesis.
Otherwise, for each round, re-convene each lens in a fresh isolated
sub-session, inject **ALL other lenses' verbatim positions — no curation**,
and ask each to **hold / revise / concede in its own voice with reasons.**
Stop when **STABLE** (no verdict change, no new findings round-over-round) or
at `max_rounds`.

**Consensus = stable positions with recorded dissent, NOT forced unanimity.**
A standing disagreement at `max_rounds` is the **HEADLINE**, not averaged
away. You are not a gavel — the human resolves genuine value conflicts.

### Synthesize (trust guardrails — non-negotiable)

1. **Print the ROSTER MANIFEST first** — `Consulted: …`, plus UNAVAILABLE
   lenses (with reason) and any ERRORED lenses.
2. **Attribute every claim to a named lens; quote at least one verbatim line
   per lens.** No anonymous synthesis.
3. **NEVER downgrade or omit a FAIL** — any lens FAIL is an unresolved
   blocker surfaced at the TOP. Interpret and weigh, but keep dissent
   visible.
4. **Keep FAIL and N/A distinguishable.**

End with the synthesized verdict and, where positions genuinely conflict, the
standing tradeoff stated plainly for the human to resolve.

---

## Relationship to `/product-council`

Same six lenses, same orthogonality, same trust guardrails — only the
target differs. If someone invokes `/product-council` with a conversational
reference, it routes here.

## Relationship to `/council-here` and `/design-council-here`

Product-council-here reviews the **plan/roadmap/scope decision** under
discussion for problem validity, goal fidelity, desirability, outcome
measurability, delivery-bet risk, and market positioning. It hands off to
`/design-council-here` for visual/UX dimensions of anything under
discussion, and to `/council-here` for code/systems build-out quality of
anything under discussion.