rube-de/claude-council · Archived

council-reference

Council review reference data — expertise weights, structured response format, scoring thresholds, and false positive taxonomy. Background knowledge for council subagents.

First seen Jun 24, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add rube-de/claude-council --skill council-reference

Stronger alternatives

This repository is archived — consider an actively maintained alternative.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

License MIT
Default branch main
Open issues 0
Status Archived

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Declared agents claude-code

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 2,934 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 198 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 1 installs

SKILL.md

Council Reference Data

Structured Response Format

Every council agent MUST return this JSON structure:

{
  "consultant": "gemini|codex|qwen|glm|kimi|claude-security|claude-bugs|claude-compliance|claude-history|claude-quality",
  "success": true,
  "fallback": false,
  "confidence": 0.0-1.0,
  "severity": "critical|high|medium|low|none",
  "findings": [
    {
      "type": "security|performance|quality|architecture|bug",
      "severity": "critical|high|medium|low",
      "description": "...",
      "location": "file:line",
      "recommendation": "..."
    }
  ],
  "summary": "One-paragraph summary"
}

location: MANDATORY for /council review findings. Format: file:line (e.g. src/api.ts:42).

Expertise Weight Matrix

Task         Gemini  Codex   Qwen    GLM-4.7  Kimi K2.5
Security     0.90    0.80    0.70    0.75     0.70
PR Review    0.85    0.90    0.80    0.75     0.80
Architecture 0.85    0.70    0.65    0.80     0.75
Code Quality 0.70    0.80    0.90    0.70     0.80
Performance  0.75    0.85    0.85    0.70     0.80
Brainstorm   0.65    0.60    0.90    0.85     0.80
Algorithms   0.70    0.75    0.85    0.85     0.80
Debugging    0.75    0.90    0.80    0.75     0.80

Scoring Thresholds

Score  Meaning
─────  ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  0    False positive. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
 25    Might be real, but unverified. Could be false positive.
 50    Real but minor. Unlikely to occur in practice.
 75    Verified real. Will impact functionality. Important.
100    Confirmed. Frequent in practice. Evidence conclusive.
─────  ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Filter threshold: Only findings scoring >= 80 appear in the final report.

False Positive Taxonomy

Score 0 (auto-reject) if a finding matches any of these:

  • Pre-existing issue not introduced in the current changes
  • Problem that a linter, typechecker, or compiler would catch
  • Pedantic nitpick that a senior engineer would not call out
  • General code quality complaint NOT backed by project CLAUDE.md
  • Issue on lines that were NOT modified in the changes under review
  • Intentional functionality change clearly related to the broader change
  • Code with explicit lint-ignore or suppress comments

Synthesis Formula

Weighted Score = Σ(Opinion × Expertise × Confidence) / Σ(Expertise × Confidence)