Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add jxoesneon/Ciel --skill council_runnergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jxoesneon/CielWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/jxoesneon/ciel/council_runner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jxoesneon/ciel/council_runner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jxoesneon/ciel/council_runner/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jxoesneon/ciel/council_runner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jxoesneon/ciel/council_runner.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00019 | $0.00687 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
council_runner scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
council_runner
Orchestrate the 3-stage Council of Five.
Operations
council.run(scope, artifact, context?)— returns Chairman verdict.council.stage1(members, artifact)— parallel scoring.council.anonymize(stage1_outputs)— Stage 2 prep.council.stage2(members, anonymized)— cross-review.council.chairman(stage2_outputs, weights)— synthesis.council.record(run_id, payload)— persist to~/.ciel/council/<id>/.
I/O Contract
io_contract:
input: { scope, artifact, "context?" }
output: { verdict, weighted_score, pivotal_lens, votes, run_id }
idempotent: no (but deterministic with seed)
side_effects: [fs, "network?"]
Runtime Adaptation
- Claude Code: nested subagents (see
adapters/claude_code/COUNCIL_INVOCATION.md). - Gemini CLI: parallel top-level subagents.
- Devin: five parallel
run_subagentdispatches per stage (seeadapters/devin/COUNCIL_INVOCATION.md). - Generic: sequential inline.
Enforcement Contract
Member-as-subagent is a mechanism, not prose (docket
council-20260923-conversation-audit, mechanism M1). Every run MUST:
-
Write the evidence pack to a readable path and dispatch each member as an individual subagent — never inline deliberation, never truncated member output. The Chairman synthesizes ALL member verdicts; it may not adopt a subset.
-
Record per-member spawn receipts and stage artifacts under
~/.ciel/council/<run_id>/:spawn_receipts.json {"mode":"subagent"|"inline","members":{name:{stage1_agent_id,stage2_agent_id}}} members/<member>.stage1.json members/<member>.stage2.json verdict.json # chairman docket -
mode: "inline"is a degraded fallback only — it MUST be declared; verification flags itunverified_member_isolation. A run with no receipts fails verification outright. -
After the docket, run
python3 scripts/council_verify.py <run_id>— validates completeness and emits structured member verdicts to~/.ciel/improvements/signals/council-<run_id>.jsonfor the improvement loop.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago Changed · +28 lines 8c7e78ab0e87
- 1mo ago First seen · 41 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A f2be5801c67f
council_runner is a skill published in the GitHub repository jxoesneon/Ciel (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 687 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
Code Quality Review
Conduct a comprehensive code quality review focused on clean code, architecture, and project standards.
surge
Use when a user provides a PRD, spec, or detailed requirements document and needs a full project delivered through iterative expert orchestration — multi-round analyze/research/design/implement/QA cycles with convergence detection. NOT for: single-file edits, quick prototypes, simple Q&A, or tasks without a written…
ai-native-software-dev
Use when the user asks to build, change, modernize, or reconstruct non-trivial software with an AI-native workflow, including greenfield development, work in an existing codebase, or authorized reference-based product reconstruction; also use when lifecycle planning, architecture, implementation, testing, review…
expert-redteam-review
Use when a user asks to evaluate a complex, high-impact, ambiguous, cross-functional, or hard-to-reverse decision; mentions expert panel, red team, adversarial review, rebuttal, judge, arbitration, risk review, challenge assumptions, poke holes, or wants stronger decision quality than a normal review.
code-review
Revisão holística pré-commit (estilo PR Review). Valida o diff contra as 3 memórias vivas, a spec da task e Clean Code, em paralelo ao QA/Security (fan-out); a evidência de teste é exigida no join. Executada pelo Tech Lead; veredito escrito em review.md.
compound
Persistência de aprendizados nas memórias vivas ao final de cada ciclo. Use para "atualizar memória", "guardar aprendizados" ou "sincronizar contexto do projeto". Executada pelo Tech Lead após o PO definir Status entregue.