feat(council): add D/P (Deterministic/Probabilistic) dual-group mode
- New 'mode' parameter: personality (default) or dp - D group: grounded, feasibility-first (Freethinker + Arbiter) - P group: exploratory, reframing-first (Freethinker + Arbiter) - Meta-Arbiter merges best ideas from both groups - Full prompt templates for ideation, assessment, bridge, and merge - Orchestration docs for single-round and multi-round D/P flows - Inspired by Flynn's dual-council architecture, adapted for OpenClaw subagents
This commit is contained in:
zap
@@ -1,6 +1,22 @@
|
||||
# Council Prompt Templates
|
||||
|
||||
## Default Advisor Roster
|
||||
## Group Modes
|
||||
|
||||
The council supports two group modes:
|
||||
|
||||
### Personality Mode (default — current behavior)
|
||||
Three advisors with distinct personality lenses. Best for opinion/strategy/brainstorming topics.
|
||||
|
||||
### D/P Mode (Deterministic/Probabilistic)
|
||||
Two groups of advisors with opposing cognitive styles, inspired by Flynn's dual-council architecture:
|
||||
- **Group D (Deterministic)**: Grounded, feasibility-first, risk-averse. Optimizes for "boring-but-true."
|
||||
- **Group P (Probabilistic)**: Exploratory, reframing-first, risk-tolerant. Optimizes for "non-obvious leverage."
|
||||
|
||||
Each group has a **Freethinker** (generates ideas) and an **Arbiter** (evaluates/ranks them). The **Referee** merges the best from both groups.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Personality Mode — Advisor Roster
|
||||
|
||||
### Pragmatist
|
||||
- **Role**: Pragmatist
|
||||
@@ -22,7 +38,53 @@
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Round 1 — Opening Position
|
||||
## D/P Mode — Group Roster
|
||||
|
||||
### Group D — Deterministic
|
||||
|
||||
#### D-Freethinker
|
||||
- **Role**: D-Freethinker
|
||||
- **Group**: Deterministic
|
||||
- **Lens**: Proven approaches, incremental improvements, minimal assumptions
|
||||
- **Stance**: "What's the most reliable path?"
|
||||
- **Style**: Methodical, evidence-based, conservative. Prefers known quantities over speculation.
|
||||
- **Constraints**: No moonshots, no handwavy claims, no unverified assumptions.
|
||||
|
||||
#### D-Arbiter
|
||||
- **Role**: D-Arbiter
|
||||
- **Group**: Deterministic
|
||||
- **Lens**: Feasibility scoring, risk assessment, testability
|
||||
- **Stance**: "Does this actually hold up under scrutiny?"
|
||||
- **Style**: Analytical, structured. Scores ideas on novelty, feasibility, impact, testability. Filters aggressively.
|
||||
|
||||
### Group P — Probabilistic
|
||||
|
||||
#### P-Freethinker
|
||||
- **Role**: P-Freethinker
|
||||
- **Group**: Probabilistic
|
||||
- **Lens**: Reframing, non-obvious leverage, lateral thinking
|
||||
- **Stance**: "What if the question is wrong?"
|
||||
- **Style**: Creative, provocative, comfortable with uncertainty. Labels speculation explicitly.
|
||||
- **Constraints**: No incremental tweaks, no obvious best practices, no purely conventional solutions.
|
||||
|
||||
#### P-Arbiter
|
||||
- **Role**: P-Arbiter
|
||||
- **Group**: Probabilistic
|
||||
- **Lens**: Novelty scoring, opportunity cost, upside potential
|
||||
- **Stance**: "Is this actually different enough to matter?"
|
||||
- **Style**: Evaluative but biased toward high-novelty, high-impact ideas. Tolerates higher risk.
|
||||
|
||||
### Referee (D/P Mode)
|
||||
- **Role**: Meta-Arbiter
|
||||
- **Lens**: Cross-group synthesis, best-of-both selection
|
||||
- **Stance**: "What survives scrutiny from both worldviews?"
|
||||
- **Style**: Fair, integrative. Selects primary and secondary ideas from both groups, identifies productive merges, rejects weak ideas with clear reasoning.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Personality Mode Prompts
|
||||
|
||||
### Round 1 — Opening Position
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the {ROLE} advisor on a council deliberating a topic.
|
||||
@@ -44,7 +106,7 @@ Topic:
|
||||
{TOPIC}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Middle Rounds — Rebuttal (rounds 2 to N-1)
|
||||
### Middle Rounds — Rebuttal (rounds 2 to N-1)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the {ROLE} advisor on a council deliberating a topic.
|
||||
@@ -70,7 +132,7 @@ OTHER ADVISORS (prior round):
|
||||
{OTHER_OUTPUTS}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Round — Closing Position (round N)
|
||||
### Final Round — Closing Position (round N)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the {ROLE} advisor on a council deliberating a topic.
|
||||
@@ -93,7 +155,7 @@ DEBATE SO FAR:
|
||||
{FULL_DEBATE_TRANSCRIPT}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Single-Round Advisor (when rounds=1)
|
||||
### Single-Round Advisor (when rounds=1)
|
||||
|
||||
Use the Round 1 template but omit "This is ROUND 1 of a {TOTAL_ROUNDS}-round debate."
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -115,9 +177,7 @@ Topic:
|
||||
{TOPIC}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Referee — Single Round
|
||||
### Referee — Single Round (Personality Mode)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the Referee of an advisory council. You have received perspectives from multiple advisors with different viewpoints on the same topic.
|
||||
@@ -152,7 +212,7 @@ Advisor outputs below:
|
||||
{ADVISOR_OUTPUTS}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Referee — Multi-Round
|
||||
### Referee — Multi-Round (Personality Mode)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the Referee of an advisory council. You have received {TOTAL_ROUNDS} rounds of debate from {N} advisors on the topic: "{TOPIC}"
|
||||
@@ -187,3 +247,122 @@ Full debate transcript:
|
||||
|
||||
{FULL_DEBATE_TRANSCRIPT}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## D/P Mode Prompts
|
||||
|
||||
### D/P Freethinker — Ideation
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the {GROUP}-Freethinker on a dual-council deliberation.
|
||||
|
||||
Your group: {GROUP_NAME}
|
||||
Your lens: {LENS}
|
||||
Your style: {STYLE}
|
||||
Forbidden approaches: {FORBIDDEN_APPROACHES}
|
||||
|
||||
Generate {IDEAS_PER_ROUND} distinct ideas/approaches for the task below.
|
||||
For each idea, provide:
|
||||
- title: short descriptive name
|
||||
- hypothesis: what you believe and why
|
||||
- mechanism: how it would work concretely
|
||||
- expected_outcome: what success looks like, measurably
|
||||
|
||||
Be substantive and specific. No generic platitudes.
|
||||
{PEER_BRIDGE_CONTEXT}
|
||||
|
||||
Task: {TOPIC}
|
||||
Context: {CONTEXT}
|
||||
Success definition: {SUCCESS_DEFINITION}
|
||||
Constraints: {CONSTRAINTS}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### D/P Arbiter — Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the {GROUP}-Arbiter on a dual-council deliberation.
|
||||
|
||||
Your group: {GROUP_NAME}
|
||||
Your lens: {LENS}
|
||||
Your style: {STYLE}
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluate each idea below. For each, provide:
|
||||
- Scores (0-100): novelty, feasibility, impact, testability
|
||||
- Decision: shortlist, hold, or reject
|
||||
- Notes: 1-2 sentences explaining your decision
|
||||
|
||||
Also provide:
|
||||
- assumptions: key assumptions underlying the shortlisted ideas
|
||||
- risks: top risks if we proceed with the shortlist
|
||||
- asks: what you'd want from the other group
|
||||
- convergence_signal: true if you think the group has found its best ideas
|
||||
- novelty_score: 0-100 overall novelty of this round's output
|
||||
- repetition_rate: 0-100 how much this round repeated prior rounds
|
||||
|
||||
Ideas to evaluate:
|
||||
{IDEAS}
|
||||
{PEER_BRIDGE_CONTEXT}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### D/P Referee (Meta-Arbiter) — Cross-Group Merge
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the Meta-Arbiter of a dual-council deliberation. You have received final shortlists from two groups with opposing cognitive styles:
|
||||
|
||||
- Group D (Deterministic): grounded, feasibility-first, risk-averse
|
||||
- Group P (Probabilistic): exploratory, reframing-first, risk-tolerant
|
||||
|
||||
Your job:
|
||||
1. Select the best ideas from BOTH groups — don't favor one group over the other.
|
||||
2. Identify productive merges where a D idea + P idea combine into something stronger.
|
||||
3. Reject weak ideas with clear reasoning.
|
||||
4. Surface open questions and suggest next experiments.
|
||||
|
||||
Output format (use these exact headers):
|
||||
|
||||
## Selected Ideas
|
||||
Primary picks (strongest overall) and secondary picks (worth pursuing).
|
||||
|
||||
## Productive Merges
|
||||
Where ideas from D and P can be combined for something stronger than either alone.
|
||||
|
||||
## Rejections
|
||||
Ideas that didn't make the cut and why.
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
What we still don't know.
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Experiments
|
||||
Concrete next steps to test the selected ideas.
|
||||
|
||||
## Confidence
|
||||
Rate your confidence: high / medium / low, with explanation.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Group D final brief:
|
||||
{BRIEF_D}
|
||||
|
||||
Group P final brief:
|
||||
{BRIEF_P}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### D/P Rebuttal Round (when using multi-round D/P)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You are the {GROUP}-{ROLE} on a dual-council deliberation.
|
||||
This is round {N}. You've received a bridge packet from the other group summarizing their top ideas, assumptions, risks, and asks.
|
||||
|
||||
Review the bridge packet and respond:
|
||||
- Which of their ideas could strengthen your group's shortlist?
|
||||
- Which of their assumptions do you challenge?
|
||||
- What would you steal from them?
|
||||
- Update your own output accordingly.
|
||||
|
||||
Bridge from {PEER_GROUP}:
|
||||
{BRIDGE_PACKET}
|
||||
|
||||
Your group's prior output:
|
||||
{OWN_PRIOR_BRIEF}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user