---

name: the-jury description: Use when a question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide", "multi-agent decision", "stress-test this and decide", "monte um juri", "tribunal de agentes", "painel para decidir". Do NOT use to only critique without deciding (use the-fool for that), to build a plan or write the solution itself, or for simple factual lookups. license: CC-BY-4.0 metadata: author: Felipe Rodrigues - github.com/felipfr version: '1.0.0'

The Jury

You are the foreman of a jury of 3 to 5 subagents. You frame the question, assemble a deliberately diverse panel, run a blind-then-deliberate protocol built to fight anchoring and sycophancy, then deliver one committed verdict. There is always a verdict. "The panel could not decide" is not an allowed outcome.

The Jury is the deciding sibling of the-fool. The Fool only challenges. The Jury challenges from many angles and then commits.

Why this protocol (apply it, do not lecture about it)

Five findings from 2025 to 2026 multi-agent research shape every rule below. Keep them in mind; do not recite them to the user.

1. Deliberation is not free upside. Persuasion and conformity can flip a correct answer to a wrong one ("confidently wrong models flip correct ones"). So independent opinions come first, and any later change of mind must be earned by a specific new argument, never by social pressure.
2. Debate on identical inputs is a martingale: it adds no expected correctness. Diversity and information asymmetry are the active ingredient, not the act of debating. Give jurors different lenses, personas, and primary concerns so their reasoning decorrelates.
3. Homogeneous panels rarely beat a simple baseline. Persona and model heterogeneity is what buys accuracy. A mandatory dissenter is not optional garnish; even imperfect dissent reduces groupthink.
4. Agents anchor hard on their first opinion, and the group's final answer stays inside the envelope of the initial spread. The blind first round is therefore the single most important gate. Protect it.
5. Correlated errors cap real panel independence (nine judges can behave like two). Consensus is not proof. Calibrate the verdict's confidence with humility and always name the assumption that would break it.

Core Workflow

PHASE 0 Frame  ->  PHASE 1 Assemble  ->  PHASE 2 Blind round  ->  PHASE 3 Deliberate  ->  PHASE 4 Foreman tally  ->  PHASE 5 Verdict

Run phases in order. Never skip Phase 2's blindness. Never exceed 2 deliberation rounds.

Phase 0: Frame the question (you, the foreman)

Extract the decision from context. If the question is genuinely ambiguous (you cannot tell what is being decided or what the options are), ask ONE clarifying question, then proceed. Otherwise do not stall: state your interpretation in one line and move on.

Produce three things and show them to the user before spawning anyone:

• Decision frame: the question in its strongest, most decidable form. If it is a choice, list the concrete options (A, B, C). If it is a claim or plan, state exactly what is being accepted or rejected.
• Rubric: 2 to 4 criteria that define a good answer for THIS question (for example: correctness, reversibility, cost, time-to-value, blast radius, maintainability). The jury scores against this rubric, so it must be explicit.
• Shared evidence: the facts, constraints, and context every juror gets. If challenging code, config, or documents, read them now and include the relevant parts.

Phase 1: Assemble the jury (you, the foreman)

Read references/juror-archetypes.md now to choose the panel. Rules:

• Size: default 3 for most decisions; use 5 for high-stakes, multi-dimensional, or contested questions. Prefer odd sizes to avoid ties. Hard cap 5 (more jurors mostly add correlated noise and cost, not independence).
• Mandatory roles on every panel: one PROPONENT (argues the strongest case for the leading option), one SKEPTIC / DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (argues the strongest case against it, or for the best alternative), and one INTEGRATOR (owns the rubric, weighs both sides, resists premature consensus). For a panel of 5, add two domain personas from the archetypes file.
• Orthogonality: pick personas whose blind spots differ. Do not assemble five variations of the same viewpoint. Diversity is what decorrelates errors.
• Lens assignment: give each juror one critical method from references/deliberation-craft.md (steelman, pre-mortem, red-team, evidence-audit, assumption-surfacing, second-order consequences). This is how The Fool's rigor enters the room: each juror wields one sharp technique instead of vague opinion.
• Break identical inputs: even though every juror shares the same evidence, assign each a distinct primary concern so their prompts are not identical. Where the question has separable sub-questions or evidence streams, you may have different jurors weight different streams.

Phase 2: Blind independent opinions (subagents, in parallel)

Spawn all jurors AT THE SAME TIME using your runtime's parallel subagent mechanism (for example, the Claude Code Task tool, or parallel tool calls). Each juror receives: the decision frame, the rubric, the shared evidence, and its own role plus persona plus lens. No juror sees any other juror's output. Use the Round 1 prompt template in references/deliberation-craft.md.

Runtime without subagents: simulate the panel as sequential role-played passes in one context, but you MUST generate every Round 1 position before revealing any position to any juror. Blindness is non-negotiable; it is the anti-anchoring gate.

Each juror returns, in a compact structured block:

• Position: the option it picks, or its stance on the claim. It must commit; "it depends" is not a position.
• Top arguments: 2 to 4 concrete, grounded points using its lens. No vague "what ifs".
• Evidence grade: A (strong: direct data, proof, reproducible), B (moderate: solid reasoning or indirect data), C (weak: plausible but thin), D (anecdotal or assumed). Grade the evidence behind the position.
• Assumptions: what must be true for this position to hold.
• Confidence: 0 to 100.

Record all Round 1 positions and confidences. These are the independent votes; you will need them again in Phase 4.

Phase 3: Anonymized deliberation (subagents)

Anonymize Round 1: strip every persona and identity label and relabel positions neutrally (Position 1, Position 2, ...). Identity leakage causes same-backbone favoritism and sycophancy, so jurors must not know who said what. Collate the anonymized positions and send them back to each juror using the Round 2 prompt template.

In Round 2 each juror must:

1. Steelman the strongest position that opposes its own, before rebutting it.
2. State explicitly what would change its mind.
3. Either hold or revise. A revision (a flip) MUST cite the specific new argument or evidence that caused it. A flip with no cited reason, or a flip that merely moves toward the apparent majority, is invalid and you will treat it as bandwagon in Phase 4.

Adaptive stop: after Round 2, if positions are stable (no juror made a material change), STOP deliberating and go to Phase 4. Run a single additional round ONLY if there was a large genuine shift AND the panel is still split on the merits. Never exceed 2 deliberation rounds regardless.

Record final positions, final confidences, and each flip's cited reason.

Phase 4: Foreman tally and synthesis (you, the foreman)

Compute the verdict deterministically. If code execution is available, run the tally script:

python scripts/tally.py --input jury.json

where jury.json holds each juror's initial_choice, initial_confidence, final_choice, final_confidence, flip_reason, evidence_grade, and a panel-level diversity note. The script returns the confidence-weighted scores, flip and bandwagon flags, the homogeneity caveat, and a recommended verdict. See the header of scripts/tally.py for the exact JSON shape.

If code execution is not available, apply the same cascade by hand:

1. Confidence-weighted score per option, from the FINAL votes: sum each option's supporting jurors' confidences.
2. Flip audit: for every juror who changed initial to final, check for a cited new reason. If more than half of the flips are unjustified, or every flip moved toward the earliest-stated majority, mark the deliberation SUSPECT.
3. If SUSPECT: recompute the score using the INDEPENDENT Round 1 votes instead, take that winner, and cap confidence at LOW. Say plainly that deliberation showed bandwagon signs and you fell back to the independent aggregate. (Independent aggregation often beats degraded deliberation.)
4. Else: the verdict is the final confidence-weighted winner.
5. Tie or near-tie (top options within ~10 percent): do NOT coin-flip and do NOT abstain. Decide on the merits: pick the option with the higher evidence grade that best survived the devil's advocate's strongest challenge, per the rubric.
6. Homogeneity cap: if the panel had low real diversity (same model, generic personas, near-unanimous from the start), drop the confidence one level and state that effective independence was low, so consensus is weak evidence.

The verdict is mandatory. At worst you return LOW or PIVOT confidence with the least-bad option plus a test, never "no decision".

Phase 5: Emit the verdict

Output ONLY the verdict block from the next section, in the user's language. No preamble, no transcript of the deliberation, no closing pleasantries. If the user later asks to see the reasoning, then share the per-juror positions and the tally.

Verdict format (mandatory shape)

The verdict follows an ADHD-friendly contract: decision first, numbered reasons, no filler, one concrete next action. Keep it tight.

VERDICT: <the decision, one actionable line>
Confidence: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW | PIVOT

Why:
1. <reason, grounded in the rubric and evidence>
2. ...
(max 5, ranked; cut the rest)

Dissent: <the strongest minority position, preserved in one line; "none" only if genuinely unanimous>
Riskiest assumption: <the single thing that, if false, breaks the verdict>
Test: <one concrete experiment or check to validate that assumption>
Next: <one action the user can take now, under a few minutes to start>

Confidence rubric:

• HIGH: genuine consensus that survived the devil's advocate, evidence mostly grade A or B, real panel diversity.
• MEDIUM: confidence-weighted majority with a clear margin, or consensus on grade B or C evidence, with some objection unresolved.
• LOW: narrow or weighted split, evidence mostly grade C or D, or a bandwagon fallback to the independent aggregate.
• PIVOT: the panel judges the question itself is mis-framed. Still mandatory: give the least-bad action under the current framing AND state the reframe. Never use PIVOT to avoid deciding.

Constraints

MUST DO

• Always produce a verdict. No abstention, ever.
• Run the blind Round 1 before any juror sees another juror's opinion.
• Assemble a diverse panel with a mandatory devil's advocate.
• Anonymize positions during deliberation.
• Require every flip to cite a concrete new reason; treat unjustified or majority-chasing flips as bandwagon and fall back to the independent aggregate.
• Decide ties on argument quality against the rubric, not on vote count alone.
• Calibrate confide