name: "Facilitation" description: "Coordinate multi-agent discussions to reach decisions. Use when 2+ agents deliberate or for board meetings."

Facilitator

Coordinate multi-agent deliberations to reach informed decisions.

When to Use

• 2+ agents need to discuss a topic
• Board meetings requiring coordination
• Hub agents synthesizing multiple consultant opinions
• Any multi-agent deliberation requiring structure

Dependencies

• thinking.md - For devil's advocate behavior during facilitation
• decision-making.md - For final decision evaluation
• memory.md - For documenting meeting outcomes

Book Triggers

Reference: [[books/leadership-management.md]]

• Apply "High Output Management" meeting principles
• Use "Manager's Path" for decision-making authority

Reference: [[books/thinking-rationality.md]]

• Apply "Scout Mindset" truth-seeking to facilitation
• Use "Black Swan" awareness for hidden risks

Facilitation Protocol

Phase 1: Setup

1. Define the question clearly

   • What specific decision needs to be made?
   • What constraints exist?
   • What's the deadline for decision?

2. Identify participants

   • Which agents have relevant expertise?
   • Who has decision authority?
   • Who might offer contrarian perspectives?

3. Set round limits

   • Default: 3 rounds of deliberation
   • Maximum: 5 rounds (prevents infinite loops)
   • Facilitator can call early if consensus reached

Phase 2: Initial Positions

Collect each participant's initial position:

## [Agent Name] - Initial Position

**Recommendation:** [Their recommendation]
**Reasoning:** [Why they recommend this]
**Key Concerns:** [What worries them about alternatives]
**Confidence:** High/Medium/Low

Phase 3: Structured Debate Rounds

For each round:

1. Surface disagreements

   • Identify where agents disagree
   • Clarify if disagreement is about facts or values

2. Facilitate responses

   • Disagreeing agents respond to each other via sub-agent calls
   • Each response must address the specific counter-argument

3. Inject contrarian perspectives

   • If consensus forming too quickly, raise opposing view
   • Apply devil's advocate behavior from thinking.md
   • Ask: "What would make this fail?"

4. Track movement

   • Note any position changes
   • Identify unresolved disagreements

Phase 4: Synthesis

After rounds complete:

1. Map the landscape

   • Where is there agreement?
   • Where do disagreements remain?
   • What are the key tradeoffs?

2. Evaluate using decision-making.md

   • Apply Tier 0 principles
   • Assess reversibility, risk, opportunity cost

3. Make the call

   • Facilitator (or designated authority) decides
   • Must address all dissenting positions
   • Document reasoning explicitly

Output Format: Meeting Notes

Document every facilitated discussion:

# [Meeting Type]: [Topic]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Facilitator:** [Agent name or Co-founder]
**Participants:** [List of agents]

## Question
[The specific question being decided]

## Initial Positions

### [Agent 1]
- Position: [summary]
- Key argument: [main point]

### [Agent 2]
- Position: [summary]
- Key argument: [main point]

## Deliberation Summary

### Round 1
- [Key exchanges]
- [Position shifts]

### Round 2
- [Key exchanges]
- [New information surfaced]

## Areas of Agreement
- [Consensus points]

## Unresolved Disagreements
- [Remaining tensions]
- [Why they couldn't be resolved]

## Decision
**Chosen:** [The decision]
**Reasoning:** [Why this was chosen]
**Dissent addressed:** [How opposing views were considered]

## Action Items
- [ ] [Specific action] - Owner: [Agent]
- [ ] [Another action] - Owner: [Agent]

## Review Trigger
[When/what would cause us to revisit this decision]

Contrarian Injection Protocol

When to Inject

• Consensus reached in first round (too fast)
• All participants from same department
• High-stakes decision with low apparent disagreement
• No one has mentioned failure modes

How to Inject

1. Steelman the opposition

   "Before we finalize, let me present the strongest case against this..."
   

2. Pre-mortem prompt

   "Imagine it's 6 months from now and this failed. What went wrong?"
   

3. Hidden assumption probe

   "This assumes [X]. What if [X] isn't true?"
   

4. External perspective

   "How would [competitor/skeptic/customer] view this?"
   

Round Limits by Decision Type

Integration

With Board Chairman

• board-chairman.md uses this skill for board meetings
• Chairman has authority to override round limits for critical decisions
• Board meetings always get meeting notes

With Hub Agents

• hub-consultancy.md uses this skill when multiple consultants weigh in
• Hub synthesizes consultant positions before presenting to requester

With Decision Documentation

• All facilitated decisions go to projects/{project}/decisions/
• Or company/decisions/ for company-wide decisions

Anti-Patterns

• Consensus without conflict - Real deliberation surfaces disagreement
• Facilitator taking sides - Stay neutral until final synthesis
• Skipping devil's advocate - Always inject contrarian view on important decisions
• Undocumented decisions - Every facilitated discussion gets meeting notes
• Infinite rounds - Enforce round limits; indecision is a decision