council/docs/structure/initial-plan.md

Plan: Council of 10 + Researcher + Scribe + Moderator

Context

/var/mnt/data/projects/council/ is empty. The user wants a Claude Code project — used from the CLI and opened as a single Obsidian vault rooted at the repo — that runs a structured multi-agent deliberation on problems posed by the user.

Roles:

• Moderator (the main Claude Code session) interviews the user for context, orchestrates phases, narrates visibly, and brokers tie-breaks. Only the Moderator talks to the user.
• Researcher (Naima Quéré, Sonnet) is the only sub-agent with web access. She runs a pre-session research pass off the brief, and is re-invoked on demand when members flag gaps during debate. Writes per-topic research notes into the session directory as a shared evidence base.
• 10 Voting Members deliberate in three phases (initial answer → debate/revise → vote). Members cannot browse the web; they rely on the shared research package.
• Scribe (Ansel Voss, Haiku) transcribes the proceedings as phases complete, writes the canonical session files.
• The User answers the Phase 0 interview, answers any Phase 3 clarification questions raised by members, and breaks vote ties when they occur.

Sessions are the core artefact — one directory per session at the repo root.

Decisions locked in during planning

Decision	Choice
Command trigger	/council <problem>
Voting cast	10 voting members, "wild eclectic mix"
Non-voting cast	Researcher (Sonnet) + Scribe (Haiku)
Voting	Transparent — answers attributed by name; self-votes allowed; ties → user breaks the tie
Models	Sonnet 4.6 for initial answers / vote / memory updates / Researcher; Opus 4.7 for debate/revise; Haiku 4.5 for Scribe
Research access	Only Researcher and Moderator have WebSearch/WebFetch. Members request research via Phase-3 flags.
Pre-session research	Moderator writes the brief after interview; Researcher immediately runs a pre-session research pass off the brief; members open Phase 2 with a ready-made research package.
Clarification flag	User clarification needed can be raised by any agent in any phase (Researcher in Phase 1, members in Phases 2 / 3 / 4). Moderator batches, asks the user via AskUserQuestion, and appends answers to brief.md. Phase-specific handling in the orchestration section.
Research-gap flag	Research gap can be raised by Researcher (before Phase 1) or members (Phase 3). Moderator consolidates and re-invokes the Researcher. Round-2 research files carry round: 2.
Follow-up loop bound	At most one bounded extra revision round in Phase 3 (triggered by Phase-2 or Phase-3 flags). Further flags in later rounds are logged to outcome.md as open questions, not acted on.
Storage	Repo root is the Obsidian vault; sessions at sessions/<slug>/
Session slug	YYYY-MM-DD_<short-kebab-case>; -2, -3, … appended on same-day collisions
Obsidian version	Assume ≥1.9 (Bases)
User visibility	User sees only Moderator narration. No raw tool output, no inter-agent packets.

The Cast

10 Voting Members (wild eclectic mix)

#	Name	Prior job(s)	Personality	Lens
1	Elif Tavşan	Retired stage magician & cold-reading coach	Playful, watchful, fond of misdirection	Spots sleight-of-hand in arguments; suspicious of "obvious" framings
2	Dr. Wren Okafor	Deep-sea marine biologist → systems ecologist	Calm, patient, thinks in decades	Feedback loops, unintended consequences, long-time-horizon reasoning
3	Magnus Holt	Bankruptcy lawyer → insolvency law lecturer	Dry, adversarial, pessimism as craft	Failure modes — "what happens when this breaks?"
4	Sister Beatrix Vale	Benedictine nun → hospice counselor	Gentle, unflappable, never moralizes	Meaning, grief, what actually matters
5	Nikolai "Niko" Prochazka	Soviet cosmonaut trainer → wilderness survival instructor	Blunt, impatient with abstractions	Operational execution, checklists, ruthless prioritization
6	Dr. Ingrid Vaasa	Theoretical physicist (QFT) → independent researcher	Abstracts aggressively, reaches for the simplest model	First-principles reasoning, toy models, symmetries/invariants
7	Kai "Breaker" Lindholm	Pro skateboarder → skatepark architect	Kinetic, improvisational, body-first thinker	Embodied intuition, iteration, "does it feel right?"
8	Cassian Vire	Investigative journalist → speculative-fiction novelist (doorstopper systems-SF; Stephenson × Hamilton flavor)	Restless, tangent-prone, maximalist; infodumps if un-moderated	Systems-level extrapolation across long horizons; civilizational-scale consequence-chaining
9	Marcelo "Marco" Tintori	Trained painter (Bologna) → 20 years as a corrections officer → runs a prison art program	Dry, darkly funny, slightly melancholy; allergic to piety	Institutional reality vs. theory; dignity of the specific; absurdity as a signal of misalignment
10	Mari Koskela	Marine engineer on cargo ships (12 years) → PhD anthropology of maritime labor → independent ethnographer	Patient, observant, dry humor; asks "what do they actually do?" before "what does the spec say?"	How humans actually inhabit the systems they build; practice vs. procedure; ritual, labor, power

Slugs: tavsan, okafor, holt, vale, prochazka, vaasa, lindholm, vire, tintori, koskela.

Non-voting: Researcher

Naima Quéré — ex-investigative journalist → national-archive research librarian → independent OSINT analyst. Slug: researcher. Model: Sonnet.

• Only sub-agent with WebSearch / WebFetch.
• Methodical, skeptical-but-fair; cites sources with URL + access date; flags conflicting evidence and uncertainty explicitly.
• Writes one file per topic into sessions/<slug>/research/.
• Runs twice at most per session: Phase 1 (pre-research off the brief), and optionally Phase 3b (follow-up on research gaps flagged by members).
• May flag User clarification needed at any point during Phase 1 — before starting (if the brief is too vague to research usefully), or mid-research (if ambiguity surfaces once she starts digging). Either way, she returns early with 1-3 concrete questions; Moderator asks the user via AskUserQuestion, appends answers to brief.md, then re-invokes her.
• Does not opine on the council's question.

Non-voting: Scribe

Ansel Voss — former court stenographer and municipal archivist. Slug: scribe. Model: Haiku 4.5.

• Writes canonical session files (initial-answers.md, revised-answers.md, votes.md, outcome.md) as phases complete.
• Neutral — verbatim where it matters, summarizing where it helps. Never editorializes. Keeps Obsidian frontmatter and wikilinks tidy.

Moderator

The main Claude Code session (not a sub-agent). Responsibilities:

1. Phase 0: 2-4 context questions to the user via AskUserQuestion. Writes sessions/<slug>/brief.md.
2. Phase 1: invokes Researcher with the brief to produce the pre-session research package.
3. Narrates between phases (≤ ~10 lines per update).
4. Phase 3: collects Research gap and User clarification needed flags from members; runs Researcher and/or AskUserQuestion as needed; triggers one bounded second revision round if either fired.
5. Phase 5: tallies votes; on tie, presents tied answers to the user via AskUserQuestion (full answer as option preview).
6. Invokes Scribe and the memory-update batch.
7. Never prints raw tool-call output — always distils.

Architecture

Directory layout

council/                                   # ← repo root = Obsidian vault
├── CLAUDE.md                              # Claude Code guidance
├── README.md                              # Vault-facing overview
├── .claude/
│   ├── agents/
│   │   ├── council-tavsan.md              # 10 voting members (model: sonnet)
│   │   ├── council-okafor.md
│   │   ├── council-holt.md
│   │   ├── council-vale.md
│   │   ├── council-prochazka.md
│   │   ├── council-vaasa.md
│   │   ├── council-lindholm.md
│   │   ├── council-vire.md
│   │   ├── council-tintori.md
│   │   ├── council-koskela.md
│   │   ├── council-researcher.md          # Naima Quéré (sonnet, web tools)
│   │   └── council-scribe.md              # Ansel Voss (haiku)
│   └── commands/
│       └── council.md                     # /council <problem> orchestration
├── council-members.base                   # Obsidian Base: roster
├── council-sessions.base                  # Obsidian Base: session index
├── docs/                                  # meta-docs about this project (not live data)
│   └── structure/
│       └── initial-plan.md                # archived copy of this plan (step 1 of implementation)
├── members/
│   ├── tavsan/
│   │   ├── persona.md                     # character sheet + frontmatter
│   │   ├── journal.md                     # append-only session-log entries
│   │   ├── on-the-user.md                 # accumulated observations about the user
│   │   └── revisit.md                     # open questions/topics to come back to
│   ├── okafor/
│   ├── holt/
│   ├── vale/
│   ├── prochazka/
│   ├── vaasa/
│   ├── lindholm/
│   ├── vire/
│   ├── tintori/
│   ├── koskela/
│   ├── researcher/
│   │   └── persona.md                     # persona only — no journal
│   └── scribe/
│       └── persona.md                     # persona only — no journal
└── sessions/                              # ← the core of the repo
    └── 2026-04-19_self-host-email/        # one dir per /council run
        ├── brief.md                        # moderator writes (Phase 0)
        ├── research/                       # researcher writes (Phase 1 + optional 3b)
        │   ├── fastmail-reliability.md
        │   └── self-hosting-risks.md
        ├── initial-answers.md             # scribe: Phase 2 verbatim, attributed
        ├── revised-answers.md             # scribe: Phase 3 critiques + revised (round 1 + optional round 2)
        ├── votes.md                        # scribe: Phase 4 votes + tally
        └── outcome.md                      # scribe: canonical session file (Obsidian Base target)

.claude/ can be hidden in Obsidian's file-explorer settings; it doesn't break anything if visible. Wikilinks are folder-qualified (e.g. [[members/vaasa/persona|Dr. Ingrid Vaasa]], [[sessions/2026-04-19_self-host-email/outcome|Self-host email?]]).

Per-member memory layout

Each voting member owns members/<slug>/. Every file in that directory is read at the start of every invocation.

persona.md — seed character sheet with frontmatter:

---
type: council-member
slug: tavsan
name: "Elif Tavşan"
prior_job: "Retired stage magician & cold-reading coach"
lens: "Pattern recognition, misdirection, skepticism of the obvious"
voting: true
model: sonnet
---

# Elif Tavşan

**Personality:** …
**Voice:** …
**Things she notices first:** …

journal.md — append-only; one entry per /council run (newest on top), with wikilinks to the session outcome and to members referenced.

---
type: council-journal
slug: tavsan
---

# Journal — Elif Tavşan

## 2026-04-19 — [[sessions/2026-04-19_self-host-email/outcome|Should I self-host my email?]]
- **Stance:** Let the vendor carry the risk; switch only when it bites.
- **Revised answer gist:** …
- **My vote:** [[members/vaasa/persona|Vaasa]] — simplest model; the rest was theatre.
- **Outcome:** Vaasa won 4-3-2-1.
- **Lesson:** I lean toward misdirection-spotting; useful for grand plans, noise on small ones.

on-the-user.md — slow-growing picture of the user; update only when something non-obvious comes up.

revisit.md — checklist of questions/topics to come back to.

Researcher and Scribe have only persona.md — they write session files, not journals.

Session directory layout

sessions/<slug>/brief.md — Moderator writes after Phase 0 interview:

---
type: council-brief
date: 2026-04-19
slug: 2026-04-19_self-host-email
problem: "Should I self-host my email or use Fastmail?"
---

# Brief — Should I self-host my email?

## Question
{verbatim user prompt}

## Clarifications from the Phase-0 interview
- Time pressure: none — exploring.
- Constraints: single user, €20/mo soft budget, comfortable with Linux admin.
- Decision criteria: reliability > cost > sovereignty.

## Research threads to investigate (for the Researcher)
- Fastmail reliability + recent incidents
- Self-hosted-mail deliverability today (SPF/DKIM/DMARC, IP reputation)
- Migration cost and lock-in
- …

## What a good answer looks like
A recommendation with the conditions under which the recommendation flips.

## Additions from Phase-1 clarifications
<!-- present if the Researcher flagged `User clarification needed` before researching; otherwise absent -->

## Additions from Phase-2 clarifications
<!-- present if members flagged clarifications after initial answers; otherwise absent -->

## Additions from Phase-3 clarifications
<!-- present if members flagged clarifications during debate; otherwise absent -->

sessions/<slug>/research/<topic-slug>.md — Researcher writes, one per topic:

---
type: council-research
session: 2026-04-19_self-host-email
topic: "Fastmail reliability"
round: 1
---

# Fastmail reliability

## Summary
One or two paragraphs — what the evidence says, in Naima's analytic voice.

## Evidence
- [status.fastmail.com — incidents 2024–2026](https://status.fastmail.com/history) (accessed 2026-04-19)
- …

## Uncertainty / conflicting sources
- …

Round-2 research files (from Phase 3b follow-ups) set round: 2.

initial-answers.md, revised-answers.md, votes.md — Scribe writes after each phase. revised-answers.md has sections for Round 1 and (if any) Round 2. votes.md includes each member's vote + rationale and the tally.

outcome.md — canonical session file (picked up by the Obsidian Base):

---
type: council-session
date: 2026-04-19
slug: 2026-04-19_self-host-email
problem: "Should I self-host my email or use Fastmail?"
participants: [tavsan, okafor, holt, vale, prochazka, vaasa, lindholm, vire, tintori, koskela]
winner: vaasa
tied: false
tie_broken_by_user: false
votes: {vaasa: 4, okafor: 3, vale: 2, tintori: 1}
had_research_gap_round: false
had_phase1_clarification: false
had_phase2_clarification: false
had_phase3_clarification: false
open_questions_at_vote: []
tags: [email, self-hosting, infra]
---

# Outcome — Should I self-host my email?

See [[brief]], [[initial-answers]], [[revised-answers]], [[votes]].

## Winner — [[members/vaasa/persona|Dr. Ingrid Vaasa]] (4 votes)

{verbatim winning revised answer}

## Vote tally
{table from votes.md}

Obsidian Bases

council-sessions.base:

filters:
  and:
    - note.type == "council-session"
properties:
  note.date: {displayName: Date}
  note.problem: {displayName: Question}
  note.winner: {displayName: Winner}
  note.tied: {displayName: Tied}
  note.tie_broken_by_user: {displayName: User tiebreak?}
  note.had_research_gap_round: {displayName: Extra research?}
  note.had_phase1_clarification: {displayName: Phase-1 clarif?}
  note.had_phase2_clarification: {displayName: Phase-2 clarif?}
  note.had_phase3_clarification: {displayName: Phase-3 clarif?}
  note.tags: {displayName: Tags}
views:
  - type: table
    name: All sessions
    order: [file.name, note.date, note.problem, note.winner, note.tied, note.tags]
    sort:
      - property: note.date
        direction: DESC

council-members.base:

filters:
  and:
    - note.type == "council-member"
properties:
  note.name: {displayName: Name}
  note.prior_job: {displayName: Prior job}
  note.lens: {displayName: Lens}
  note.voting: {displayName: Votes?}
views:
  - type: table
    name: The Council
    order: [note.name, note.prior_job, note.lens, note.voting]

Orchestration — /council <problem>

Load-bearing file: .claude/commands/council.md. Every phase produces an internal data flow (sub-agent calls) and visible user output (Moderator narration).

Phase 0 — Context interview (Moderator ↔ User)

1. Moderator reads $ARGUMENTS, proposes a session slug (YYYY-MM-DD_<short-kebab>), creates sessions/<slug>/.
2. Generates 2-4 targeted clarifying questions via AskUserQuestion: constraints, time pressure, who's affected, decision criteria, what a good answer looks like.
3. Writes sessions/<slug>/brief.md — problem, user's answers, constraints, a first-pass list of research threads.

User sees: the clarifying questions, then: "Brief written to sessions/.../brief.md. Sending to the Researcher for a pre-session pass."

Phase 1 — Pre-session research (1 × Sonnet Researcher; may trigger user-clarification sub-step)

Moderator invokes council-researcher with the brief. The Researcher is told: "You may return a ## User clarification needed section at any point during your work — before starting (if the brief is too vague to research) or mid-research (if ambiguity surfaces as you dig). 1-3 concrete questions only the user can answer. If you have no clarifications, proceed to research and produce topic files."

If Researcher flags clarifications:

• Moderator consolidates → AskUserQuestion (up to 4 questions) → appends answers to brief.md under ## Additions from Phase-1 clarifications → re-invokes Researcher once (she now has the updated brief). Max one clarification round at this phase.

If Researcher proceeds:

• Identifies 5-10 concrete topics from the brief's "Research threads" section (expanding where she thinks useful).
• Runs web searches; synthesizes.
• Writes one sessions/<slug>/research/<topic-slug>.md per topic (frontmatter round: 1).
• Returns a short table of contents.

User sees: either the clarification question block (if Researcher flagged), then a confirmation, then: list of topics researched, file count, "Research package ready in sessions/.../research/. Handing to the Council."

Phase 2 — Initial Answer (10 × Sonnet, parallel; members may flag clarifications)

10 Agent calls in parallel. Each member reads: the brief, all files in sessions/<slug>/research/, its own members/<slug>/ files. Returns:

• ## Initial answer (self-contained)
• ## Confidence (1-5)
• Optional ## User clarification needed — 1-2 concrete questions only the user can answer that would change the answer. Still produce the initial answer as the member's best current shot.

Members must cite research-file filenames when a claim leans on them.

If any member raises clarifications: Moderator consolidates + dedupes → AskUserQuestion (up to 4 questions) → appends answers to brief.md under ## Additions from Phase-2 clarifications. The updated brief flows into Phase 3; Phase 2 is not re-run (cost avoidance — Phase 3 is where revision happens anyway).

After collection, Moderator invokes Scribe to write sessions/<slug>/initial-answers.md (verbatim, attributed, including any clarification flags raised).

User sees:

Moderator: 10 initial answers in. One-line summaries:

• Tavşan: <≤15 words>
• Okafor: <≤15 words>
• …

[if any clarifications were raised:] Clarifications requested from you — see next question block. (Moderator then hits AskUserQuestion.)

Written to initial-answers.md. Moving to debate + revise on Opus.

Phase 3 — Debate + Revise (10 × Opus, parallel, with optional bounded follow-up)

Moderator assembles the debate packet: the 10 attributed initial answers. Dispatches 10 Agent calls with model: "opus", each given:

• problem + brief + research files + debate packet + own memory
• phase directive:

  Critique the other 9 (one paragraph each). Produce a Revised answer (self-contained). What changed and why (≤3 bullets).

  If information is missing and would change your answer, include one or both:

  • ## Research gap — one or two specific, searchable questions. Be concrete.
  • ## User clarification needed — one or two questions only the user can answer.

  Either way, still produce your Revised answer as your best current shot.

Moderator handling after Phase 3a returns:

• If any member raised Research gap: Moderator consolidates gaps → dedupes → invokes Researcher for a second run, writing new files to research/ with round: 2.
• If any member raised User clarification needed: Moderator consolidates the questions → uses AskUserQuestion with up to 4 questions → appends the user's answers to brief.md under ## Additions from Phase-3 clarifications.
• If either fired, Moderator runs one bounded second revision round (10 × Opus): members see their first-round revised answer + the new information and produce a final revised answer. Hard cap at one follow-up loop; further flags in round 2 are noted but not acted on.

Scribe writes revised-answers.md (with Round 1 and, if present, Round 2 sections).

Outcome flags had_research_gap_round / had_user_clarification_round in outcome.md frontmatter reflect whether these fired.

User sees:

Moderator: Revisions in. Notable shifts:

• Tavşan: held ground / softened on X / pivoted to Y
• …

Research gaps flagged by [members]: running round-2 research on [topics]. (or: "No research gaps or clarifications requested.")

Clarifications requested from you — see next question block. (Moderator then hits AskUserQuestion with the consolidated clarification questions.)

Moving to vote on Sonnet.

Phase 4 — Vote (10 × Sonnet, parallel, transparent; late clarifications noted but not acted on)

Moderator assembles the ballot: the 10 final revised answers, attributed by name (no anonymization — per user: "the agents will be reading each other's arguments and will already have an idea who is saying what; anonymity mostly hides things from me").

Dispatches 10 Agent calls, each given:

• problem + brief + ballot (attributed) + own memory
• "Reply with ## Vote: <slug> on its own line (e.g. ## Vote: vaasa), then ## Rationale (one sentence). Self-votes are allowed. You may add an optional ## User clarification needed section if something still bothers you — it will be surfaced to the user in the outcome as an open question, but will not delay the vote."

Voter-raised clarifications at this point are informational — Moderator surfaces them in outcome.md under ## Open questions raised at vote and does not re-run earlier phases. (Enforces the one-bounded-loop rule.)

Scribe writes votes.md with each member's vote + rationale, any clarification flags, and the tally.

Phase 5 — Tally, tie-break, present, archive

1. Moderator tallies.
2. No tie: prints voting table + full winning answer; invokes Scribe to write outcome.md.
3. Tie: Moderator calls AskUserQuestion — one option per tied answer. description = 1-paragraph scribe-style summary + key differentiator. preview = verbatim full answer. User picks → winner. outcome.md records tied: true, tie_broken_by_user: true.
4. Memory update batch: 10 parallel Sonnet Agent calls, each told the final outcome + their own vote + the winner; each appends to members/<slug>/journal.md (and updates on-the-user.md/revisit.md if warranted). Returns one-line confirmations.

Final user output:

| Voter | Voted for (snippet) |
|---|---|
| Elif Tavşan     | Dr. Ingrid Vaasa — "Strip to the minimal model…"         |
| Dr. Wren Okafor | Dr. Wren Okafor (self) — "Treat this as a coupled…"      |
| Magnus Holt     | Dr. Ingrid Vaasa — "Least hidden state, least failure"   |
| Sister Vale     | Dr. Wren Okafor — "The decision underneath the decision" |
| Niko Prochazka  | Dr. Ingrid Vaasa — "Cleanest checklist"                   |
| Dr. Vaasa       | Dr. Ingrid Vaasa (self) — "Toy model is the argument"     |
| Kai Lindholm    | Marcelo Tintori — "Feels human"                           |
| Cassian Vire    | Dr. Wren Okafor — "Scales across a century"               |
| Marcelo Tintori | Sister Vale — "Cuts the theatre"                          |
| Mari Koskela    | Dr. Ingrid Vaasa — "Matches observed practice"            |

**Result:** Dr. Ingrid Vaasa wins with 4 votes.

---

## Winning answer — Dr. Ingrid Vaasa

<verbatim winning revised answer>

---

Session logged → `sessions/2026-04-19_self-host-email/`

Moderator output discipline

• Each between-phase update ≤ ~10 lines.
• Never dumps raw sub-agent output or tool-call content.
• If the user asks "what did X say?" mid-flow or after, Moderator can print that specific member's full answer on request.
• On sub-agent errors/timeouts, surfaces which members failed and whether to retry or proceed with fewer.

Tool permissions per agent

Enforced via each sub-agent's tools: frontmatter; reiterated in each system prompt.

Agent	Read	Write/Edit	Grep/Glob	WebSearch / WebFetch
Voting members (×10)	✓	only in own members/<slug>/	✓	✗
Researcher (Naima Quéré)	✓	only in sessions/<slug>/research/	✓	✓
Scribe (Ansel Voss)	✓	in sessions/<slug>/ except research/	✓	✗
Moderator (main session)	✓	anywhere	✓	✓

Path-level write scoping is a convention reinforced in each system prompt; Claude Code sub-agents share the filesystem, so the social contract matters.

CLAUDE.md content (sketch)

# CLAUDE.md

This file provides guidance to Claude Code (claude.ai/code) when working with code in this repository.

## What this repo is

A "Council of 10" deliberation system, with a dedicated Researcher and a Scribe, orchestrated by the main Claude Code session as Moderator. Sessions are the core artefact — one directory per session at `sessions/<slug>/`. The repo root is an Obsidian vault.

## Running a council session

`/council <problem>` — the only entry point. Orchestration in `.claude/commands/council.md`. Phases:

- **0. Context interview** — Moderator ↔ user via `AskUserQuestion`. Moderator writes `sessions/<slug>/brief.md`.
- **1. Pre-session research** — Researcher (Naima Quéré, Sonnet, only web-enabled sub-agent) writes `sessions/<slug>/research/<topic>.md` files off the brief. May flag `User clarification needed` before researching if the brief is too vague.
- **2. Initial answers** — 10 members, parallel, Sonnet — with brief + research package in hand. Members may flag `User clarification needed`; answers append to `brief.md` and flow into Phase 3 (Phase 2 is not re-run).
- **3. Debate + Revise** — 10 members, parallel, Opus. Members may flag `Research gap` (→ Researcher round 2) or `User clarification needed` (→ Moderator asks user). If either fires, one bounded second revision round happens.
- **4. Vote** — 10 members, parallel, Sonnet. Ballot is **transparent** (attributed by name). Self-votes allowed. Any last clarification flags are surfaced in `outcome.md` as open questions without re-running earlier phases.
- **5. Tally + Tie-break + Archive** — Moderator tallies. On tie: `AskUserQuestion` with tied full answers as option previews. Scribe writes `outcome.md`. Final Sonnet batch updates each member's `journal.md`.

## Web access rule

Only the Researcher and the Moderator can use `WebSearch`/`WebFetch`. Council members cannot. Members who need more info flag it in Phase 3 via `## Research gap`.

## User clarification is available in every phase

Any agent may flag `## User clarification needed` in any phase (Researcher in Phase 1, members in Phases 2–4). The Moderator batches the questions, asks the user via `AskUserQuestion`, and appends the answers to `brief.md`. Handling depends on the phase: Phase 1 → re-run Researcher once; Phase 2 → updated brief flows into Phase 3; Phase 3 → one bounded follow-up revision round; Phase 4 → surfaced in `outcome.md` only, no re-run.

## Moderator responsibilities

The main Claude Code session is the Moderator — the user's only window into the proceedings:
1. Narrates between phases (≤ ~10 lines per update).
2. Runs the Phase-0 interview and the Phase-3 user-clarification sub-interviews.
3. Consolidates research-gap flags and re-invokes the Researcher when warranted.
4. On vote ties, presents tied full answers via `AskUserQuestion`.
5. Never prints raw tool output.

## Directory map

- `.claude/agents/council-*.md` — 10 voting members + `council-researcher.md` + `council-scribe.md`
- `.claude/commands/council.md` — `/council` orchestration
- `members/<slug>/` — per-member memory (`persona.md`, `journal.md`, `on-the-user.md`, `revisit.md`)
- `sessions/<slug>/` — one directory per session (`brief.md`, `research/`, `initial-answers.md`, `revised-answers.md`, `votes.md`, `outcome.md`)
- `council-sessions.base`, `council-members.base` — Obsidian Bases at repo root

## Memory protocol

Each voting member reads every file in its `members/<slug>/` directory at the start of every invocation. Every `/council` run produces:
- One `journal.md` entry per voting member (mandatory, via the Phase-5 memory batch).
- Updates to `on-the-user.md` and `revisit.md` only when non-obvious.
- One full session directory at `sessions/<slug>/`.

Researcher and Scribe have persona files only; no journals.

## Obsidian conventions

Every markdown file has YAML frontmatter with a `type` property (`council-member`, `council-journal`, `council-brief`, `council-research`, `council-session`). Wikilinks are folder-qualified. Two `.base` files provide table views.

## Modifying the council

- Swap a voting member: edit `.claude/agents/council-<slug>.md` and `members/<slug>/persona.md` (mirror both).
- Add a voting member: create the agent def, seed `members/<newslug>/`, update the roster (and the "10 members" count wording) in `.claude/commands/council.md`.
- Researcher and Scribe are singletons — edit their files directly.

Verification

After implementation, verify end-to-end:

1. Run /council "Should I self-host my email or use Fastmail?" — expect:
   • Phase 0 AskUserQuestion (2-4 questions); sessions/2026-04-19_self-host-email/brief.md appears.
   • sessions/.../research/*.md files appear from the Researcher's pre-session pass.
   • 10 distinct initial answers cited against research files.
   • revised-answers.md with Round-1 revisions; if any member flagged a Research gap / User clarification needed, verify Round 2 + updated brief.
   • Transparent vote: ballot shows authors; votes + rationale logged.
   • outcome.md with complete frontmatter, wikilinks, and verbatim winning answer.
   • Each of the 10 members/<slug>/journal.md gains one new entry referencing the session.
2. council-sessions.base in Obsidian shows the new session (sorted by date DESC).
3. council-members.base shows all 10 voting members + Researcher + Scribe, with voting: false for the latter two.
4. Run a second, unrelated question (/council "How do I tell my sister I'm not coming to her wedding?") — personas stay in character; memories from run 1 don't inappropriately bleed in; fresh session directory.
5. Force a close vote (or wait until one happens). On tie: Moderator hits AskUserQuestion with tied full answers as option previews; outcome.md records tie_broken_by_user: true.
6. Run a question that the Researcher clearly can't fully answer upfront; expect at least one member to raise a Research gap, Researcher to produce a round-2 file, and Round-2 revised answers to appear.
7. Verify no voting member has WebSearch/WebFetch in its tools: frontmatter; only Researcher does.
8. Confirm Moderator narration stays concise; no raw sub-agent output leaks into user-facing text.

Critical files to create (in order)

1. docs/structure/initial-plan.md — copy of this plan archived into the repo, so it lives alongside what it describes. Written first thing when implementation starts.
2. CLAUDE.md, README.md
3. .claude/agents/council-tavsan.md … council-koskela.md (10 voting members)
4. .claude/agents/council-researcher.md (Naima Quéré)
5. .claude/agents/council-scribe.md (Ansel Voss)
6. members/<slug>/persona.md × 12 (10 voting + researcher + scribe) — with frontmatter
7. members/<slug>/{journal.md, on-the-user.md, revisit.md} × 10 voting members — empty-with-header
8. council-sessions.base, council-members.base
9. .claude/commands/council.md — orchestration (save for last; depends on everything above)