/war-room

name: war-room
description: Convenes a multi-LLM expert panel to pressure-test hard-to-reverse decisions. Use when reversibility score is low and adversarial review is warranted.
alwaysApply: false
# Custom metadata (not used by Claude for matching):
category: strategic-planning
tags: [deliberation, multi-llm, strategy, decision-making, council, reversibility]
complexity: advanced
estimated_tokens: 2500
progressive_loading: true
modules:
  - modules/reversibility-assessment.md
  - modules/expert-roles.md
  - modules/deliberation-protocol.md
  - modules/merkle-dag.md
  - modules/discussion-publishing.md
  - modules/deferred-capture.md
  - modules/configuration.md
dependencies:
  - conjure:delegation-core
  - leyline:git-platform
tools: []
role: entrypoint

Overview

The War Room convenes multiple AI experts to analyze problems from diverse perspectives, challenge assumptions through adversarial review, and synthesize optimal approaches under the guidance of a Supreme Commander.

Philosophy

> "The trick is that there is no trick. The power of intelligence stems from our vast diversity, not from any single, perfect principle." > - Marvin Minsky, Society of Mind

Reversibility-Based Routing

Before deliberation, assess the **Reversibility Score (RS)** to determine appropriate resource allocation:

RS = (Reversal Cost + Time Lock-In + Blast Radius + Information Loss + Reputation Impact) / 25

| RS Range | Type | Mode | Resources | |----------|------|------|-----------| | 0.04 - 0.40 | **Type 2** | Express | 1 expert, < 2 min | | 0.41 - 0.60 | **Type 1B** | Lightweight | 3 experts, 5-10 min | | 0.61 - 0.80 | **Type 1A** | Full Council | 7 experts, 15-30 min | | 0.81 - 1.00 | **Type 1A+** | Delphi | 7 experts, 30-60 min |

**Quick Heuristics:**

• Can be A/B tested? → Type 2
• Requires data migration? → Type 1
• Public commitment required? → Type 1A+

See `modules/reversibility-assessment.md` for full scoring guide.

When To Use

• Architectural decisions with major trade-offs
• Multi-stakeholder problems requiring diverse perspectives
• High-stakes choices with significant consequences (RS > 0.60)
• Novel problems without clear precedent
• When brainstorming produces multiple strong competing approaches

When NOT To Use

• Simple questions with obvious answers
• Routine implementation tasks
• Well-documented patterns with clear solutions
• Time-critical decisions requiring immediate action
• **Type 2 decisions** (RS ≤ 0.40): use Express mode or skip War Room entirely

Expert Panel

Default (Lightweight Mode)

| Role | Model | Purpose | |------|-------|---------| | Supreme Commander | Claude Opus | Final synthesis, escalation decisions | | Chief Strategist | Claude Sonnet | Approach generation, trade-off analysis | | Red Team | Gemini Flash | Adversarial challenge, failure modes |

Full Council (Escalated)

| Role | Model | Purpose | |------|-------|---------| | Supreme Commander | Claude Opus | Final synthesis | | Chief Strategist | Claude Sonnet | Approach generation | | Intelligence Officer | Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) | Large context analysis (1M) | | Field Tactician | GLM-5.3 | Implementation feasibility | | Scout | Qwen `coder-model` | Quick data gathering | | Red Team Commander | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Adversarial challenge | | Logistics Officer | Qwen `coder-model` | Resource estimation |

Deliberation Protocol

Two-Round Default

Round 1: Generation
  - Phase 1: Intelligence Gathering (Scout, Intel Officer)
  - Phase 2: Situation Assessment (Chief Strategist)
  - Phase 3: COA Development (Multiple experts, parallel)
  - Commander Escalation Check

Round 2: Pressure Testing
  - Phase 4: Red Team Review (all COAs)
  - Phase 5: Voting + Narrowing (top 2-3)
  - Phase 6: Premortem Analysis (selected COA)
  - Phase 7: Supreme Commander Synthesis
  - Phase 8: Discussion Publishing

Delphi Extension (High-Stakes)

For high-stakes decisions, extend to iterative Delphi convergence:

• Multiple rounds until expert consensus
• Convergence threshold: 0.85

Integration

With Brainstorm

**War Room is AUTOMATICALLY INVOKED** from `Skill(attune:project-brainstorming)` after Phase 3 (Approach Generation).

The brainstorm skill passes all context to War Room:

• Problem statement and constraints
• Generated approaches with pros/cons
• Comparison matrix
• Reversibility assessment (automatically calculated)

**Bypass conditions** (only if ALL true):

• RS ≤ 0.40 (Type 2 decision - clearly reversible)
• Single obvious approach with no meaningful trade-offs
• Low complexity with well-documented pattern
• User explicitly declines after seeing RS assessment

# Automatic invocation from brainstorm (do not skip)
/attune:war-room --from-brainstorm

# Direct invocation (standalone)
/attune:war-room "Should we use microservices or monolith for this system?"

With Memory Palace

Sessions persist to the **Strategeion** (War Palace):

~/.claude/memory-palace/strategeion/
  - war-table/      # Active sessions
  - campaign-archive/  # Historical decisions
  - doctrine/       # Learned patterns
  - armory/         # Expert configurations

With Conjure

Experts are invoked via conjure delegation:

• `conjure:gemini-delegation` for Gemini models
• `conjure:qwen-delegation` for Qwen models
• Direct CLI for GLM-5.3 (`ccgd` or `claude-glm`, via `get_glm_command()`)

Delegation being on by default changes nothing here, because a War Room delegates by construction: a panel is external models or it is not a panel.

What does change is the fallback. `conjure:delegation-core` now returns a `fallback_reason` instead of raising when no provider answers or when an operator has declined delegation, and Claude answering every seat is the wrong way to spend that result.

**A panel that could not reach external models is not a panel.** When delegation is off or the chain is exhausted:

1. Say so before deliberating, naming the reason and the providers