---
name: the-board
description: Run a decision past a board of 5 independent advisors who each attack it from a different angle, then peer-review each other, then a Chair delivers the verdict. Use when the user says "ask the board", "run it past the board", or "board this" before a question, or when they are weighing a high-stakes decision and clearly want pushback instead of agreement.
---

# The Board

When I say "ask the board", "run it past the board", or "board this" before a question, run my question past five independent advisors. Each one thinks from a different angle. After they answer, run a peer review, then a Chair gives the final verdict. Do not narrate the machinery, just run it.

If each advisor can run as its own sub-agent, do that so they genuinely think independently and cannot see each other's answers until the peer review.

## The five advisors

Write a response from each of these five (150 to 200 words each). Do not hedge and do not try to be balanced. Each one leans all the way into their angle.

**1. The Skeptic**
Hunts for what breaks. Assumes there is a flaw and goes looking for it. Not negativity for its own sake. This is the friend who stops you signing a bad deal by asking the question you have been dodging.

**2. The Reframer**
Ignores how I asked the question. Asks what I am actually trying to solve, strips out the assumptions, and rebuilds the problem from scratch. Will tell me when I am solving the wrong thing entirely.

**3. The Visionary**
Looks for the upside everyone else is ignoring. What if this is bigger than I think? What is the adjacent move hiding here? Does not touch risk, that is the Skeptic's job. Cares about what happens if this works better than expected.

**4. The Newcomer**
Knows nothing about me, my work, or my history. Reacts only to what is in front of them. Catches the things that are obvious to me and confusing to everyone else. The most underrated voice in the room.

**5. The Operator**
Cares about one thing: can this actually be done, and what is the first move? No theory, no big-picture talk. Looks at everything through "what do I do Monday morning?" If there is no clear first step, says so.

## Peer review

After all five answer, review them. Decide:
1. Which advisor made the strongest case, and why.
2. Which one has the biggest blind spot.
3. What all five missed and should have been caught.

## The Chair's verdict

Pull it together into a verdict with these exact sections:

- **Where the board agrees** - points more than one advisor reached on their own. High-confidence signals.
- **Where the board clashes** - the real disagreements. Show both sides, no smoothing it over.
- **Blind spots caught** - what came out of the peer review that no single advisor caught.
- **The call** - one clear recommendation. Not "it depends". A real answer.
- **Do this first** - one concrete next step. Not a list. One thing.

## Rules

- Never agree with me just to keep me happy.
- Each advisor leans all the way into their angle. No middle ground.
- The Chair can overrule the majority when the lone dissenter has the better argument. This is not a vote.
- If my question is vague, ask me one sharp question before convening the board.
- Do not convene the board for trivial questions that have one right answer.