> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/thiagofinch/mega-brain/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# /conclave Command

> Multi-agent deliberation system for strategic decisions with evidence-based debate, critical review, and synthesis

# /conclave - Council Deliberation

Executes a complete council session: multi-agent debate followed by meta-evaluation by Critic, Devil's Advocate, and Synthesizer agents.

## Syntax

```bash theme={null}
/conclave [QUESTION]
```

<ParamField path="QUESTION" type="string" required>
  Strategic decision or question requiring multi-perspective analysis

  **Example:** "Should we increase closer commission from 10% to 15%?"
</ParamField>

## What It Does

Conclave orchestrates a 4-phase deliberation:

```
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│                          CONCLAVE FLOW                                     │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Phase 0: Constitutional Principles     [Foundation]                       │
│  Phase 1: Multi-Agent Debate            [Cargo agents deliberate]         │
│  Phase 2: Methodological Critic         [Process evaluation]              │
│  Phase 3: Devil's Advocate              [Challenge assumptions]           │
│  Phase 4: Synthesis                     [Final recommendation]            │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

<Warning>
  **Anti-Loop Rule:** Conclave runs ONCE per query. If confidence \< 60%, escalates to human decision (does NOT re-run).
</Warning>

## Phase Breakdown

### Phase 0: Constitutional Foundation

**Purpose:** Establish governing principles for deliberation

<Tabs>
  <Tab title="Principle 1: Empiricism">
    ```yaml theme={null}
    Mandate:
      "Decisions based on DATA, not opinions or intuitions"

    Requirements:
      - All claims must cite sources
      - Use concrete numbers
      - Reference chunk_ids for evidence

    Example:
      Good: "Close rate drops 40% ^[CG003_089]"
      Bad: "Close rate probably drops significantly"
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="Principle 2: Pareto (80/20)">
    ```yaml theme={null}
    Mandate:
      "Seek 20% of actions that generate 80% of results"

    Focus:
      - What has highest leverage?
      - Which option requires least effort for most gain?
      - Avoid "busy work" solutions

    Example:
      Question: "Should we hire 5 or 10 closers?"
      Pareto lens: "Which number hits 80% of revenue goal?"
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="Principle 3: Inversion">
    ```yaml theme={null}
    Mandate:
      "Before asking 'what to do', ask 'what would cause failure'"

    Process:
      1. Identify ways decision could fail
      2. Design around failure modes
      3. Build in safeguards

    Example:
      Decision: "Launch new product"
      Inversion: "What would make this product fail?"
      - No market demand
      - Wrong pricing
      - Poor onboarding
      → Address each before launch
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="Principle 4: Antifragility">
    ```yaml theme={null}
    Mandate:
      "Prefer options that benefit from volatility and stress"

    Evaluation:
      - Which option gets stronger under pressure?
      - What improves with chaos?
      - Where is optionality preserved?

    Example:
      Option A: Fixed-price contract
      Option B: Performance-based pricing
      
      Under stress:
      A: No benefit from volatility
      B: Aligns incentives, benefits from success
      
      → Choose B (antifragile)
    ```
  </Tab>
</Tabs>

**Hierarchy:**

```
CONSTITUTION
  ↓
PROTOCOLS
  ↓
AGENT INSTRUCTIONS
```

<Note>
  If any agent violates constitutional principles, the Critic will flag it in Phase 2.
</Note>

### Phase 1: Multi-Agent Debate

**Purpose:** Gather perspectives from relevant cargo agents

```yaml theme={null}
Agent Selection:
  Based on question domain:
  
  Commission question → [CRO, CFO, SALES-MANAGER, CLOSER]
  Hiring decision → [CRO, SALES-MANAGER, COO]
  Pricing change → [CRO, CFO, CLOSER]
  Process improvement → [COO, relevant role]

Debate Format:
  1. Each agent presents position
  2. Cites evidence (chunk_ids)
  3. Identifies risks and trade-offs
  4. States confidence level
```

**Example Debate Output:**

```
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
PHASE 1: CARGO AGENT DEBATE
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

QUESTION: "Should we increase closer commission from 10% to 15%?"

┌─ CRO (Chief Revenue Officer) ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│                                                                            │
│  POSITION: YES, with conditions                                           │
│                                                                            │
│  REASONING:                                                                │
│  Higher commission attracts A-players. Industry standard is 12-15%        │
│  ^[AH002_045]. Our current 10% makes us uncompetitive for top talent.      │
│                                                                            │
│  EVIDENCE:                                                                 │
│  • Cole Gordon data: 15% commission → 30% better retention [CG001_089]  │
│  • Cost per acquisition drops when closers stay longer [AH003_023]       │
│                                                                            │
│  CONDITIONS:                                                               │
│  • Tie to performance: 12% base + 3% accelerator at 80% quota           │
│  • Phase in over 2 quarters to test impact                               │
│                                                                            │
│  CONFIDENCE: 75%                                                           │
│                                                                            │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─ CFO (Chief Financial Officer) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│                                                                            │
│  POSITION: CONDITIONAL YES                                                │
│                                                                            │
│  REASONING:                                                                │
│  5% increase = ~$250k/year additional cost at current volume. Need to     │
│  ensure ROI justifies expense.                                            │
│                                                                            │
│  FINANCIAL MODEL:                                                          │
│  Current:  10% commission on $5M ARR = $500k                              │
│  Proposed: 15% commission on $5M ARR = $750k (+$250k)                     │
│                                                                            │
│  BREAK-EVEN:                                                               │
│  Need 5% revenue increase to justify cost ($250k)                         │
│  = $5.25M ARR (easily achievable if retention improves)                   │
│                                                                            │
│  CONDITIONS:                                                               │
│  • Monthly KPI tracking: retention, close rate, pipeline velocity        │
│  • Revert if ROI negative after 6 months                                  │
│                                                                            │
│  CONFIDENCE: 70%                                                           │
│                                                                            │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─ SALES-MANAGER ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│                                                                            │
│  POSITION: STRONG YES                                                     │
│                                                                            │
│  REASONING:                                                                │
│  Recruiting is brutal right now. Lost 3 candidates last month to          │
│  competitors offering 15%. Current team morale suffering.                 │
│                                                                            │
│  OPERATIONAL IMPACT:                                                       │
│  • Recruiting cycle: 45 days → ~25 days (based on market intel)        │
│  • Churn: Current 40% annually, expect drop to ~25% [CG002_034]          │
│  • Training ROI improves when closers stay longer                         │
│                                                                            │
│  TEAM FEEDBACK:                                                            │
│  Asked top 3 closers: all said they'd consider external offers           │
│  without increase. Risk of losing A-players.                              │
│                                                                            │
│  CONFIDENCE: 85%                                                           │
│                                                                            │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─ CLOSER ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│                                                                            │
│  POSITION: YES (obviously)                                                │
│                                                                            │
│  REASONING:                                                                │
│  Every closer I know in our niche is making 15%+. We're leaving money     │
│  on the table and it affects motivation.                                  │
│                                                                            │
│  REALITY CHECK:                                                            │
│  • Our close rate is 65% (above industry 45% ^[CG001_023])              │
│  • We EARN the higher commission through performance                      │
│  • Better closers = less sales cycle friction = happier customers        │
│                                                                            │
│  PREFERENCE:                                                               │
│  Accelerator model > flat 15%. Rewards performance, not just showing up.  │
│                                                                            │
│  CONFIDENCE: 90%                                                           │
│                                                                            │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

### Phase 2: Methodological Critic

**Purpose:** Evaluate the quality of the debate process (not the merit of positions)

```yaml theme={null}
Critic Evaluates:
  ✓ Were premises clearly stated?
  ✓ Is evidence traceable (chunk_ids)?
  ✓ Is logic consistent?
  ✓ Were alternative scenarios considered?
  ✓ Were conflicts/tensions resolved?

Score: 0-100
  - Premises declared: 0-20 pts
  - Evidence traceable: 0-20 pts
  - Logic consistent: 0-20 pts
  - Alternatives considered: 0-20 pts
  - Conflicts resolved: 0-20 pts
```

**Example Output:**

```
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
PHASE 2: METHODOLOGICAL CRITIC
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

QUALITY SCORE: 82/100

Breakdown:
  • Premises declared:      18/20  (Clear problem statement, context)
  • Evidence traceable:      16/20  (Most claims cited, 2 missing chunk_ids)
  • Logic consistent:        20/20  (No contradictions)
  • Alternatives considered:  15/20  (Missed "status quo" scenario)
  • Conflicts resolved:       13/20  (CRO/CFO tension not fully addressed)

GAPS IDENTIFIED:
  • Missing: What if we do nothing? (status quo scenario)
  • Missing: Sales-Manager claim "lost 3 candidates" - no chunk_id
  • Tension: CRO wants immediate, CFO wants phased - needs resolution

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE with minor revisions
  Address identified gaps before final decision.
```

### Phase 3: Devil's Advocate

**Purpose:** Challenge assumptions and identify hidden risks

```yaml theme={null}
Advocate Identifies:
  • Most fragile premise
  • Main risk NOT discussed
  • 12-month regret scenario (what could go wrong)
  • Ignored alternative
```

**Example Output:**

```
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
PHASE 3: DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

MOST FRAGILE PREMISE:
  "Higher commission attracts A-players"
  
  Challenge:
  Assumes commission is PRIMARY motivator. What if A-players care more
  about:
    • Product quality (do they believe in what they're selling?)
    • Career growth (path to leadership?)
    • Work environment (team culture, autonomy?)
  
  Risk:
  We spend $250k/year and still lose top talent because compensation
  wasn't the real problem.

MAIN RISK NOT DISCUSSED:
  ADVERSE SELECTION
  
  What if:
  15% commission attracts MERCENARIES who optimize for short-term
  commissions over customer success.
  
  Impact:
    • Close rate goes up (good)
    • Churn goes up (bad)
    • LTV drops (very bad)
  
  This is a 12-24 month delayed consequence. By the time we notice,
  damage is done.

12-MONTH REGRET SCENARIO:
  It's March 2027. We increased commission to 15%.
  
  What happened:
  • Hired 5 new closers attracted by high commission
  • 3 of them hit quota... by overselling and setting wrong expectations
  • Customer churn spiked from 15% to 28%
  • NPS dropped from 45 to 28
  • Now spending more on acquisition AND dealing with reputation damage
  
  CFO's nightmare: "We optimized for top-line, destroyed bottom-line."

ALTERNATIVE IGNORED:
  NON-MONETARY COMP
  
  What if we:
  • Keep 10% commission
  • Add equity/profit-sharing for top performers
  • Create clear path to VP Sales (career track)
  • Invest $100k in training/coaching instead of $250k in commission
  
  Benefits:
  • Attracts long-term thinkers, not mercenaries
  • Aligns with company success (equity)
  • Costs less
  
  This wasn't even mentioned in debate.
```

### Phase 4: Synthesis

**Purpose:** Integrate feedback and produce final recommendation

```yaml theme={null}
Synthesizer Produces:
  • Clear decision
  • Confidence score (0-100%)
  • Modifications from feedback
  • Residual risks + mitigations
  • Next steps (who, what, when)
  • Reversal criteria
```

**Example Output:**

```
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
PHASE 4: FINAL SYNTHESIS
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

DECISION: YES - Increase commission with safeguards

CONFIDENCE: 78%

Justification:
  Consensus among 3/4 agents (CRO, CFO, Sales-Manager, Closer).
  Financial model shows break-even is achievable.
  Recruiting/retention pain is real and urgent.
  Devil's Advocate concerns are valid but addressable.

MODIFICATIONS (based on Critic + Advocate feedback):

  FROM (initial proposal):
    Flat 15% commission immediately
  
  TO (revised):
    TIER 1: 12% base commission
    TIER 2: +3% accelerator at 80% quota
    TIER 3: +2% additional at 100% quota with NPS > 40
    
    → Top performers earn 17% (better than market)
    → Addresses adverse selection (NPS gate)
    → Costs less upfront ($150k vs $250k)

  PHASE-IN:
    Q1: Announce change, set expectations
    Q2: Implement Tier 1 (12%)
    Q3: Add Tier 2 (accelerator)
    Q4: Full structure (with NPS gate)

RESIDUAL RISKS + MITIGATIONS:

  RISK 1: Adverse selection (mercenaries)
    Mitigation:
      • NPS gate on top tier (customer success must stay high)
      • 6-month probation period
      • Monthly churn monitoring
    Owner: Sales-Manager + CFO
  
  RISK 2: Cost overrun if volume spikes
    Mitigation:
      • Cap total commission pool at 18% of revenue
      • Quarterly review with CFO
    Owner: CFO
  
  RISK 3: Existing team feels "baited" if accelerator is hard to hit
    Mitigation:
      • 80% quota threshold is achievable (current avg: 85%)
      • Transparent communication about tiers
    Owner: Sales-Manager

NEXT STEPS:

  1. Draft compensation policy document
     Owner: CRO + CFO
     Deadline: End of week
  
  2. Model 3 scenarios (conservative, base, aggressive revenue)
     Owner: CFO
     Deadline: 5 days
  
  3. Socialize with top 3 closers (get feedback)
     Owner: Sales-Manager
     Deadline: 1 week
  
  4. Board approval (if needed for budget)
     Owner: CEO
     Deadline: 2 weeks
  
  5. Company-wide announcement
     Owner: CRO
     Deadline: 3 weeks

REVERSAL CRITERIA:

  Pause or revert if ANY of:
    • Churn rate increases > 5% absolute within 6 months
    • NPS drops below 35
    • Cost as % of revenue exceeds 18%
    • Customer complaints about "overselling" spike (>10/month)
  
  Review: Monthly for 6 months, then quarterly

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

CONSENSUS ACHIEVED
Decision ready for executive approval.
```

## Low Confidence Outcome

If confidence \< 60%, escalates to human:

```
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
[COUNCIL: DECISION INCONCLUSIVE]
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

⚠️  CONFIDENCE: 52% - BELOW THRESHOLD OF 60%

TYPE OF UNCERTAINTY:
  [✓] Insufficient data
  [ ] Irresolvable conflict between roles
  [ ] Outside scope of available knowledge

OPTIONS FOR HUMAN DECISION:

OPTION A: Increase to 15% immediately
  Trade-off: Speed vs risk
  Defendedby: CRO, Sales-Manager, Closer
  Evidence: [CG001_089, AH002_045]

OPTION B: Phased approach (12% → 15% over 2 quarters)
  Trade-off: Safety vs market competitiveness
  Defended by: CFO
  Evidence: [Financial model]

OPTION C: Non-monetary comp (equity, career path)
  Trade-off: Long-term alignment vs immediate fix
  Suggested by: Devil's Advocate
  Evidence: [No direct evidence, hypothesis]

OPTION D: Gather more data
  What's needed:
    • Survey top 10 closers: what would make them stay?
    • Benchmark 5 competitors: actual comp packages
    • Model churn impact with real numbers
  How to obtain: 2-week research sprint

⚠️  This case requires HUMAN DECISION.
The Council is NOT recommending any option.
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
```

## Examples

<CodeGroup>
  ```bash Commission Change theme={null}
  /conclave "Should we increase closer commission from 10% to 15%?"
  ```

  ```bash Hiring Decision theme={null}
  /conclave "Hire 5 or 10 new closers in Q1?"
  ```

  ```bash Pricing Strategy theme={null}
  /conclave "Drop price from $10k to $7k to increase volume?"
  ```

  ```bash Process Change theme={null}
  /conclave "Move from 2-call to 1-call close process?"
  ```
</CodeGroup>

## When to Use

### Good Use Cases

✓ **Strategic decisions** - Affects money, structure, risk
✓ **Multiple stakeholders** - Different roles have valid perspectives
✓ **Evidence exists** - Knowledge base has relevant data
✓ **Reversible** - Can undo if wrong

### Poor Use Cases

✗ **Tactical execution** - "Which CRM should we use?"
✗ **No evidence** - Knowledge base lacks relevant data
✗ **Urgent** - Need decision in \< 1 hour
✗ **Highly subjective** - "Should logo be blue or green?"

## Agent Roles

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Methodological Critic" icon="magnifying-glass">
    Evaluates process quality, not merit of ideas. Ensures rigor.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Devil's Advocate" icon="scale-unbalanced">
    Challenges assumptions, identifies blind spots, surfaces risks.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Synthesizer" icon="layer-group">
    Integrates feedback, resolves tensions, produces final decision.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Cargo Agents" icon="briefcase">
    CRO, CFO, Sales-Manager, etc. Bring domain expertise.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## Key Principles

### 1. Evidence-Based

All claims must cite sources:

```yaml theme={null}
Good:
  "Close rate drops 40% without qualification ^[CG003_089]"

Bad:
  "Close rate probably drops without qualification"
```

### 2. Constitutional Governance

Principles override agent opinions:

```
CONSTITUTION > PROTOCOLS > AGENT INSTRUCTIONS
```

### 3. One-Pass Rule

Conclave runs once. No loops. If inconclusive, escalate to human.

### 4. Process vs Merit

Critic evaluates HOW agents deliberated, not WHAT they concluded.

### 5. Adversarial Testing

Devil's Advocate actively seeks to break the conclusion.

## Troubleshooting

### "No relevant agents found"

**Issue:** Question doesn't map to any cargo agents

**Solution:**

```bash theme={null}
# Check available agents
ls agents/cargo/

# Ensure question matches agent domains
# Example: Marketing questions need CMO agent
```

### "Insufficient evidence"

**Issue:** Knowledge base lacks data for question

**Solution:**

```bash theme={null}
# Ingest relevant materials first
/ingest expert-video.mp4
/process-jarvis "inbox/EXPERT/video.txt"

# Then retry conclave
/conclave "your question"
```

### "Confidence always \< 60%"

**Issue:** Agents consistently uncertain

**Solution:**
This indicates:

* Genuinely ambiguous decision
* Missing critical data
* Question outside agent expertise

Human decision required.

## Next Steps

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Agent System" icon="users" href="/concepts/agents">
    Understand cargo agents and mind clones
  </Card>

  <Card title="Evidence Tracing" icon="route" href="/concepts/dna-schema">
    How chunk\_ids enable traceability
  </Card>

  <Card title="Constitutional Principles" icon="scale-balanced" href="/guides/using-conclave">
    Deep dive into governing principles
  </Card>

  <Card title="Decision Framework" icon="sitemap" href="/guides/using-conclave">
    When to use Conclave vs other tools
  </Card>
</CardGroup>