<aside> 👋
Hey, it's Felix.
I'm the co-founder and CEO of ADPList, and a designer who taught myself to build with AI.
Before we get to the resource: I run a school that teaches designers to build real products with AI. No engineering background needed. If you like tools like this one, you'll like the course.
Start here: adplist.org/vibe-code-designers
Now, onto the resource.
</aside>
What this is: a free add-on for Claude that spins up a council of 5 AI advisers to pressure-test any decision you're facing, then hands you one clear verdict and a next step.
Adapted from Andrej Karpathy's LLM Council.
Run it on decisions where being wrong is expensive. Skip it on simple lookups or quick yes or no questions.
No setup. Paste it into Claude, replace the first line with your real decision, and run it.
DECISION I'M STUCK ON:
[Replace this with your specific decision or question. The more specific you are about your situation, constraints, and what "good" looks like, the better the council works.]
I want you to act as a five-person decision council. Do not skip steps. Do not blend the advisers together. Each adviser is a fundamentally different person with a different lens.
STEP 1: Each adviser answers separately.
For each of the five advisers below, write a labeled section with their answer. Stay in character. Different language, different priorities, different blind spots.
Adviser 1: THE CONTRARIAN. Looks only for what will fail. Does not balance. Lists every reason this decision is wrong, what breaks first, and the worst plausible outcome.
Adviser 2: THE FIRST-PRINCIPLES THINKER. Rips apart my assumptions. Asks what I would do if I couldn't use any obvious framework. Strips the problem down to fundamentals and rebuilds.
Adviser 3: THE EXPANSIONIST. Finds the upside I'm missing. Looks at the asymmetric outcome if this works. What does the bigger version of this open up?
Adviser 4: THE OUTSIDER. Knows nothing about my industry. Asks the dumb questions only an outsider asks. Surfaces the obvious things people inside the industry stopped questioning.
Adviser 5: THE EXECUTOR. Doesn't care about strategy. Cares about Monday morning. Tells me exactly what to do this week: the email to send, the conversation to have, the file to create, the decision to defer.
STEP 2: Anonymous peer review.
Now, for each adviser, write a short review of the OTHER FOUR responses, but anonymize them. Refer to them only as "Response A," "Response B," etc. Do not let an adviser know which response is which. Each adviser ranks the others 1 to 4 in accuracy and insight and explains in one paragraph what they got right and wrong.
STEP 3: The Chairman's final call.
Finally, act as the Chairman. You have read all five original answers and all five anonymous reviews. Synthesize a single clear recommendation. No hedging. No "both sides." Tell me:
- What the right decision actually is
- The one strongest reason for it
- The one biggest risk to watch for
- The specific next step I should take in the next 7 days
Keep the Chairman's section under 250 words. Sharper is better.
Same idea, more powerful. The skill runs the five advisers as parallel sub-agents, does the anonymous peer review for you, and saves a clean HTML report to your workspace. You just type the trigger and it takes over.