/board-meeting
The proposal, plan, or decision to deliberate on
> /plugin marketplace add Ibrahim-3d/orchestrator-supaconductor > /plugin install orchestrator-supaconductor@ibrahim-plugins
How it fires
How this command gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/board-meeting
Context preview
What this command does when you run it.
The proposal, plan, or decision to deliberate on
Command definition
board-meeting.mdname: board-meeting
description: "Full board deliberation with discussion rounds - directors debate and reach consensus"
model: opus
arguments:
- name: proposal
type: string
description: "The proposal, plan, or decision to deliberate on"
required: false
user_invocable: true/orchestrator-supaconductor:board-meeting — Full Board Deliberation
Run a complete 4-phase board meeting with the 5-member Board of Directors. Directors assess, discuss, debate, and vote to reach consensus.
Usage
/orchestrator-supaconductor:board-meeting [proposal or leave blank to review current track]
The 4 Phases
Phase 1: Individual Assessment (Parallel)
All 5 directors evaluate the proposal independently and simultaneously.
Phase 2: Board Discussion (3 Rounds)
Directors respond to each other's concerns and questions via message bus.
Phase 3: Final Vote
Each director casts their final vote with confidence level.
Phase 4: Board Resolution
Aggregate votes and produce official board decision.
Directors
| Director | Domain | Focus | |----------|--------|-------| | **CA** | Technical | System design, patterns, scalability | | **CPO** | Product | User value, scope, usability check | | **CSO** | Security | Vulnerabilities, compliance, risk | | **COO** | Operations | Feasibility, timeline, resources | | **CXO** | Experience | UX/UI, accessibility, journey |
Resolution Rules
| Votes | Resolution | |-------|------------| | 5-0 or 4-1 APPROVE | **APPROVED** | | 3-2 APPROVE | **APPROVED WITH REVIEW** | | 3-2 REJECT | **REJECTED** | | 4-1 or 5-0 REJECT | **REJECTED** | | Tie/Deadlock | **Chief Architect (CA) casts tiebreaking vote** based on technical merit |
Execution Flow
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PHASE 1: ASSESS │
│ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ │
│ │ CA │ │ CPO │ │ CSO │ │ COO │ │ CXO │ (parallel) │
│ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ │
│ └────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ MESSAGE BUS │ │
│ └────────┬────────┘ │
│ │ │
├───────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ PHASE 2: DISCUSS │
│ │ │
│ Round 1: Initial responses to concerns │
│ Round 2: Rebuttals and clarifications │
│ Round 3: Final positions │
│ │ │
├───────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ PHASE 3: VOTE │
│ │ │
│ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ │
│ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │
│ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ │
│ │ │
├───────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ PHASE 4: RESOLVE │
│ │ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ DECISION │ │
│ │ + Conditions │ │
│ │ + Dissent log │ │
│ └─────────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Output Format
## Board of Directors Resolution
**Proposal**: [Brief description]
**Session**: [timestamp]
**Verdict**: APPROVED | APPROVED WITH REVIEW | REJECTED
### Vote Summary
| Director | Vote | Confidence | Key Condition |
|----------|------|------------|---------------|
| CA | APPROVE | 0.9 | Add caching layer |
| CPO | APPROVE | 0.8 | Validate with usability check |
| CSO | CONCERNS→APPROVE | 0.7 | Security audit first |
| COO | APPROVE | 0.85 | 2-week buffer |
| CXO | APPROVE | 0.95 | A11y is solid |
**Final: 5-0 APPROVE**
### Conditions for Approval
1. Add caching layer for API responses (CA)
2. Complete security audit before production (CSO)
3. Buffer timeline by 2 weeks (COO)
### Discussion Highlights
- CA challenged CPO on scope → CPO agreed to defer Phase 2
- CSO raised auth concern → CA proposed JWT rotation
- CXO praised accessibility approach
### Dissenting Opinions
None recorded.
---
*Board session complete. Proceed with implementation.*
When to Use
- **Major Track Planning** — Before starting significant features
- **Architecture Decisions** — ADRs, system design choices
- **Risk Assessment** — Security or operational concerns
- **Conflict Resolution** — When stakeholders disagree
- **Go/No-Go Decisions** — Launch readiness, major releases
Read more
name: board-meeting
description: "Full board deliberation with discussion rounds - directors debate and reach consensus"
model: opus
arguments:
- name: proposal
type: string
description: "The proposal, plan, or decision to deliberate on"
required: false
user_invocable: true/orchestrator-supaconductor:board-meeting — Full Board Deliberation
Run a complete 4-phase board meeting with the 5-member Board of Directors. Directors assess, discuss, debate, and vote to reach consensus.
Usage
/orchestrator-supaconductor:board-meeting [proposal or leave blank to review current track]
The 4 Phases
Phase 1: Individual Assessment (Parallel)
All 5 directors evaluate the proposal independently and simultaneously.
Phase 2: Board Discussion (3 Rounds)
Directors respond to each other's concerns and questions via message bus.
Phase 3: Final Vote
Each director casts their final vote with confidence level.
Phase 4: Board Resolution
Aggregate votes and produce official board decision.
Directors
| Director | Domain | Focus | |----------|--------|-------| | **CA** | Technical | System design, patterns, scalability | | **CPO** | Product | User value, scope, usability check | | **CSO** | Security | Vulnerabilities, compliance, risk | | **COO** | Operations | Feasibility, timeline, resources | | **CXO** | Experience | UX/UI, accessibility, journey |
Resolution Rules
| Votes | Resolution | |-------|------------| | 5-0 or 4-1 APPROVE | **APPROVED** | | 3-2 APPROVE | **APPROVED WITH REVIEW** | | 3-2 REJECT | **REJECTED** | | 4-1 or 5-0 REJECT | **REJECTED** | | Tie/Deadlock | **Chief Architect (CA) casts tiebreaking vote** based on technical merit |
Execution Flow
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ PHASE 1: ASSESS │ │ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ │ │ │ CA │ │ CPO │ │ CSO │ │ COO │ │ CXO │ (parallel) │ │ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ └──┬───┘ │ │ └────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ │ │ ┌─────────────────┐ │ │ │ MESSAGE BUS │ │ │ └────────┬────────┘ │ │ │ │ ├───────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ PHASE 2: DISCUSS │ │ │ │ │ Round 1: Initial responses to concerns │ │ Round 2: Rebuttals and clarifications │ │ Round 3: Final positions │ │ │ │ ├───────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ PHASE 3: VOTE │ │ │ │ │ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ │ │ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │ VOTE │ │ │ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘ │ │ │ │ ├───────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ PHASE 4: RESOLVE │ │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────────┐ │ │ │ DECISION │ │ │ │ + Conditions │ │ │ │ + Dissent log │ │ │ └─────────────────┘ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Output Format
## Board of Directors Resolution **Proposal**: [Brief description] **Session**: [timestamp] **Verdict**: APPROVED | APPROVED WITH REVIEW | REJECTED ### Vote Summary | Director | Vote | Confidence | Key Condition | |----------|------|------------|---------------| | CA | APPROVE | 0.9 | Add caching layer | | CPO | APPROVE | 0.8 | Validate with usability check | | CSO | CONCERNS→APPROVE | 0.7 | Security audit first | | COO | APPROVE | 0.85 | 2-week buffer | | CXO | APPROVE | 0.95 | A11y is solid | **Final: 5-0 APPROVE** ### Conditions for Approval 1. Add caching layer for API responses (CA) 2. Complete security audit before production (CSO) 3. Buffer timeline by 2 weeks (COO) ### Discussion Highlights - CA challenged CPO on scope → CPO agreed to defer Phase 2 - CSO raised auth concern → CA proposed JWT rotation - CXO praised accessibility approach ### Dissenting Opinions None recorded. --- *Board session complete. Proceed with implementation.*
When to Use
- **Major Track Planning** — Before starting significant features
- **Architecture Decisions** — ADRs, system design choices
- **Risk Assessment** — Security or operational concerns
- **Conflict Resolution** — When stakeholders disagree
- **Go/No-Go Decisions** — Launch readiness, major releases
Multi-agent orchestration system for Claude Code with parallel execution, automated quality gates, Board of Directors, and bundled Superpowers skills
Repo: Ibrahim-3d/orchestrator-supaconductor
Other commands on orchestrator-supaconductor.
- /board-review
The proposal, plan, or decision to review
Open command - /brainstorm
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores requirements and design before implementation.
Open command - /brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores requirements and design before implementation.
Open command - /ceo
Your business question or topic to discuss
Open command - /close-track
Skip quality gate — use for abandoned or superseded tracks
Open command - /cmo
Your marketing question or topic to discuss
Open command

