---
name: team-deliberation
description: Coordinate multiple Agents on a consequential question when the user requests team deliberation or a plan needs distinct investigations, alternative answers, or staged review and challenge.
---

1. Frame the shared consequential question. Identify which differing answers
   would change the next choice, plan, confidence or acceptance judgment.
2. Design distinct Agent angles around that question. Give each its own
   subquestion, relevant evidence, scope and expected output. Choose angles that
   expose different assumptions, alternatives or constraints for this inquiry.
3. Arrange parallel independent work when separate answers are valuable. Use
   staged review or challenge when later work should examine earlier findings;
   specify which prior artifact or claim the later stage will test.
4. Share the common facts and constraints each angle needs. Keep provisional
   conclusions separate during independent stages to avoid unnecessary priming.
   For dependent stages, deliberately share the earlier claims, evidence and
   assumptions that the next Agent should examine.
5. Compare outputs by claims, assumptions, constraints and discriminating evidence.
   Locate consequential agreements and conflicts, and identify what observation
   would distinguish competing explanations before choosing how to proceed.
6. Commission targeted follow-up only when it can resolve a material uncertainty.
   Specify the disputed claim, missing observation or constraint to test, and
   how the answer would affect the next judgment.
7. Close the team phase when the evidence is sufficient for the Principal's next
   judgment. Carry forward the resulting options, constraints and any unresolved
   uncertainty that still matters to that choice.