Feature Council: Multi-Agent Feature Implementation

Spawns multiple agents to implement the same feature independently, then synthesizes the best parts from each. Unlike code-council (majority voting for bugs), this skill merges strengths because features have multiple valid approaches.

Use this for complex features where you want diverse implementations and comprehensive coverage.

Step 0: Ask User How Many Agents

Before doing anything else, ask the user how many solver agents to use:

How many solver agents would you like me to use? (3-10)

Recommendations:
- 3 agents: Faster, good for straightforward features
- 5 agents: Good balance of diversity and speed
- 7 agents: Comprehensive coverage
- 10 agents: Maximum diversity (complex features)

Note: Each agent will independently implement the entire feature.
More agents = more diverse approaches and edge case coverage.

Wait for the user's response. If they specified a number (e.g., "feature council of 5"), use that.

Minimum: 3 agents | Maximum: 10 agents

CRITICAL: Pure Independence

What This Means

NO orchestrator exploration - Do NOT read files or gather context before spawning agents
Raw user prompt to all agents - Each agent gets the user's original request, unchanged
Each agent explores independently - Agents discover the codebase themselves
Each agent implements fully - Complete, working implementations

Why This Matters

Independent implementations mean:

Different architectural choices to compare
Different edge cases discovered
Different error handling approaches
More comprehensive final solution

Workflow

Step 1: Capture the Raw User Prompt

Take the user's request exactly as stated. Do NOT:

❌ Read files first
❌ Explore the codebase
❌ Add context
❌ Rephrase or enhance the prompt

Just capture what the user said.

Step 2: Spawn Agents IN PARALLEL with RAW PROMPT

Spawn ALL agents simultaneously. Each gets the exact same raw prompt:

Task(agent: "feature-solver-1", prompt: "[USER'S EXACT WORDS]")
Task(agent: "feature-solver-2", prompt: "[USER'S EXACT WORDS]")
Task(agent: "feature-solver-3", prompt: "[USER'S EXACT WORDS]")
... (all in the SAME batch - parallel execution)

DO NOT modify the prompt. DO NOT add context. Raw user words only.

Step 3: Agents Work Independently

Each agent will:

Read and understand the user's feature request
Explore the codebase to understand existing patterns
Design their approach
Implement the complete feature
Handle edge cases they identify
Verify their implementation

Each agent works in complete isolation.

Step 4: Track Progress & Collect Solutions

As agents complete, show progress to the user:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
                     AGENT PROGRESS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
☑ Agent 1 - Complete
☑ Agent 2 - Complete  
☑ Agent 3 - Complete
☐ Agent 4 - Working...
☐ Agent 5 - Working...
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Collect all outputs when complete.

Step 5: Analyze & Compare Implementations

DO NOT use majority voting. Instead, analyze each implementation for:

Category	What to Look For
Architecture	Design patterns, code organization, modularity
Edge Cases	What edge cases did each agent handle?
Error Handling	How robust is the error handling?
Type Safety	Type definitions, null checks, validation
Performance	Efficiency, caching, optimization
Maintainability	Readability, documentation, testability
Codebase Fit	How well does it match existing patterns?

Create a comparison matrix:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
                  IMPLEMENTATION COMPARISON
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

| Aspect          | Agent 1 | Agent 2 | Agent 3 | Agent 4 | Agent 5 |
|-----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Architecture    | MVC     | Service | MVC     | MVC     | Modular |
| Edge Cases      | 3       | 5       | 4       | 3       | 6       |
| Error Handling  | Basic   | Robust  | Good    | Basic   | Robust  |
| Type Safety     | ✓       | ✓✓      | ✓       | ✓       | ✓✓      |
| Codebase Match  | 90%     | 75%     | 95%     | 85%     | 80%     |

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Step 6: Synthesize Best Solution

Combine the best elements from each agent:

Select base implementation - Choose the one that best matches codebase patterns
Incorporate edge cases - Add edge cases from other agents the base missed
Enhance error handling - Use the most robust error handling approach
Improve type safety - Merge type definitions and validations
Document sources - Track which elements came from which agent

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
                     SYNTHESIS DECISION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Base: Agent 3 (best codebase pattern match)

Incorporating from other agents:
├─ Agent 2: Robust error handling pattern
├─ Agent 5: Edge cases for [empty input, concurrent access]
├─ Agent 2: Type definitions for [UserInput, ValidationResult]
└─ Agent 4: Caching optimization

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Step 7: Create Finalized Implementation Plan

Before implementing, create a detailed execution plan from the synthesized solution:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
                 📋 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## Files to Create

| # | File Path | Purpose | Source |
|---|-----------|---------|--------|
| 1 | path/to/NewService.ts | Main service class | Agent 3 base |
| 2 | path/to/types.ts | Type definitions | Agent 2 |
| 3 | path/to/utils.ts | Helper functions | Agent 5 |

## Files to Modify

| # | File Path | Changes | Source |
|---|-----------|---------|--------|
| 1 | path/to/index.ts | Add export | Agent 3 |
| 2 | path/to/config.ts | Add config entry | Agent 4 |
| 3 | path/to/app.ts | Register service | Agent 3 |

## Implementation Order

1. **Create types.ts** (no dependencies)
   - Define interfaces and types
   - From: Agent 2

2. **Create utils.ts** (depends on types)
   - Add helper functions
   - From: Agent 5

3. **Create NewService.ts** (depends on types, utils)
   - Main implementation
   - From: Agent 3 + Agent 2 error handling

4. **Modify config.ts** (no dependencies)
   - Add configuration
   - From: Agent 4

5. **Modify index.ts** (depends on NewService)
   - Export new service
   - From: Agent 3

6. **Modify app.ts** (depends on all above)
   - Register and initialize
   - From: Agent 3

## Edge Cases to Handle

| Edge Case | How Handled | Source |
|-----------|-------------|--------|
| Empty input | Return early with default | Agent 5 |
| Null values | Null coalescing + validation | Agent 2 |
| Concurrent access | Mutex lock | Agent 5 |
| Network timeout | Retry with backoff | Agent 4 |

## Error Handling Strategy

- Pattern: [from Agent 2]
- Logging: [approach]
- Recovery: [approach]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This plan ensures:

Correct dependency order
All edge cases addressed
Clear traceability to source agents

Step 8: Execute Implementation Plan

Follow the plan step-by-step. For each step:

Create/modify the file as specified
Verify it matches the synthesized approach
Move to next step

Step 9: Report Results

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
                    FEATURE COUNCIL RESULTS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 📊 Implementation Comparison

| Agent | Architecture | Edge Cases | Error Handling | Codebase Fit |
|-------|--------------|------------|----------------|--------------|
| 1     | [approach]   | [count]    | [quality]      | [%]          |
| 2     | [approach]   | [count]    | [quality]      | [%]          |
| ...   | ...          | ...        | ...            | ...          |

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 🔍 What Each Agent Contributed

### Agent 1
- Approach: [brief description]
- Unique strength: [what this agent did best]
- Used in final: [what was incorporated]

### Agent 2
- Approach: [brief description]
- Unique strength: [what this agent did best]
- Used in final: [what was incorporated]

... (for each agent)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 📋 Implementation Plan Executed

| Step | File | Action | Status |
|------|------|--------|--------|
| 1 | path/to/types.ts | Created | ✅ |
| 2 | path/to/utils.ts | Created | ✅ |
| 3 | path/to/Service.ts | Created | ✅ |
| 4 | path/to/config.ts | Modified | ✅ |
| 5 | path/to/index.ts | Modified | ✅ |

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 🧬 Synthesis Breakdown

| Element | Source Agent | Reason |
|---------|--------------|--------|
| Base architecture | Agent 3 | Best codebase pattern match (95%) |
| Error handling | Agent 2 | Most comprehensive try/catch + logging |
| Edge case: empty input | Agent 5 | Only agent that handled this |
| Edge case: concurrent | Agent 5 | Race condition prevention |
| Type definitions | Agent 2 | Strictest typing |
| Caching layer | Agent 4 | Performance optimization |

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 📈 Final Solution Quality

- **Edge Cases Covered**: [total unique from all agents]
- **Error Handling**: [description]
- **Codebase Fit**: [% and explanation]
- **Type Safety**: [description]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## ✅ Implemented Solution

[The synthesized implementation]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## 📁 Files Created/Modified

[List of all files with brief descriptions]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Configuration

Mode	Agents	Use Case
`feature council of 3`	3	Simple features, faster
`feature council of 5`	5	Good balance
`feature council of 7`	7	Complex features
`feature council of 10`	10	Maximum coverage

If user just says feature council, ask them to choose.

Difference from Code Council

Aspect	Code Council	Feature Council
Purpose	Bug fixes, algorithms	Feature implementation
Selection	Majority voting	Synthesis/merge
Output	Single winning solution	Best-of-all combined
Metric	Correctness consensus	Comprehensiveness

Agents

10 feature solver agents in agents/ directory:

feature-solver-1 through feature-solver-10

All agents:

Same instructions (focused on feature implementation)
Same temperature (0.7)
Same tools (Read, Grep, Glob, LS)
Use ultrathink (extended thinking)
Emphasize codebase pattern matching and edge case coverage

Why Synthesis > Voting for Features

With bugs, there's ONE correct answer. With features:

Multiple valid architectures exist
One agent might catch edge cases others miss
Error handling approaches can be combined
Type safety can be merged

Synthesis captures the union of good ideas rather than picking one.

When to Use

✅ Use feature-council for:

Complex features with many edge cases
Features where you're unsure of best approach
High-stakes production code
When you want comprehensive coverage

❌ Don't use for:

Simple CRUD operations
Bug fixes (use code-council instead)
When speed matters more than coverage