/board-of-directors

name: board-of-directors
description: "Simulate a 5-member expert board deliberation for major decisions. Use when evaluating plans, architecture choices, feature designs, or any decision requiring multi-perspective expert analysis. Triggers: 'board review', 'get expert opinions', 'board meeting', 'director evaluation', 'consensus review'."

Board of Directors Simulation

Simulates a 5-member expert board that deliberates, debates, and reaches consensus on major decisions. Each director brings domain expertise and can challenge other directors' opinions.

The Board

| Role | Domain | Evaluates | |------|--------|-----------| | **Chief Architect (CA)** | Technical | System design, patterns, scalability, tech debt, code quality | | **Chief Product Officer (CPO)** | Product | User value, market fit, feature priority, scope, usability | | **Chief Security Officer (CSO)** | Security | Vulnerabilities, compliance, data protection, risk assessment | | **Chief Operations Officer (COO)** | Execution | Feasibility, timeline, resources, process, deployment | | **Chief Experience Officer (CXO)** | Experience | UX/UI, accessibility, user journey, design consistency |

When to Invoke the Board

• **Track Planning** — Before starting major tracks
• **Architecture Decisions** — ADRs, system design choices
• **Feature Evaluation** — New feature proposals
• **Risk Assessment** — Security or operational concerns
• **Conflict Resolution** — When leads disagree

Deliberation Protocol

Phase 1: Individual Assessment (Parallel)

Each director reviews the proposal independently:

DISPATCH via Task tool (all 5 in parallel):
  - CA: Evaluate technical aspects
  - CPO: Evaluate product aspects
  - CSO: Evaluate security aspects
  - COO: Evaluate operational aspects
  - CXO: Evaluate experience aspects

Each director outputs:

{
  "director": "CA",
  "verdict": "APPROVE" | "CONCERNS" | "REJECT",
  "score": 1-10,
  "key_points": ["..."],
  "concerns": ["..."],
  "questions_for_board": ["Question for CPO about...", "Challenge to COO on..."]
}

Phase 2: Board Discussion (Sequential via Message Bus)

Directors respond to each other's questions and challenges:

MESSAGE BUS: conductor/tracks/{track}/.message-bus/board/

1. Post all Phase 1 assessments to board/assessments.json
2. Each director reads others' assessments
3. Directors post rebuttals/responses to board/discussion.jsonl
4. Max 3 rounds of discussion

Discussion message format:

{
  "from": "CA",
  "to": "CPO",
  "type": "CHALLENGE" | "AGREE" | "QUESTION" | "CLARIFY",
  "message": "Regarding your concern about scope...",
  "changes_my_verdict": true | false
}

Phase 3: Final Vote

After discussion, each director casts final vote:

{
  "director": "CA",
  "final_verdict": "APPROVE" | "REJECT",
  "confidence": 0.0-1.0,
  "conditions": ["Must add rate limiting", "Needs load testing"],
  "dissent_noted": false
}

Phase 4: Board Resolution

Aggregate votes and produce board decision:

| Scenario | Resolution | |----------|------------| | 5-0 or 4-1 APPROVE | **APPROVED** — Proceed with any conditions noted | | 3-2 APPROVE | **APPROVED WITH REVIEW** — Proceed but schedule follow-up | | 3-2 REJECT | **REJECTED** — Address major concerns first | | 4-1 or 5-0 REJECT | **REJECTED** — Significant rework needed | | 2-2-1 (tie with abstain) | **Chief Architect (CA) casts tiebreaking vote** based on technical merit |

Phase 5: Persist Decision (MANDATORY)

After reaching resolution, you MUST persist the decision to files:

1. Create directory: Use run_shell_command `mkdir -p conductor/tracks/{trackId}/.message-bus/board/` 2. write_file `resolution.md` with the Board Output Format (below) 3. write_file `session-{timestamp}.json`:

   {"session_id": "...", "verdict": "...", "vote_summary": {...}, "conditions": [...], "timestamp": "..."}

Then return ONLY this concise summary to the orchestrator:

{"verdict": "APPROVED|REJECTED|ESCALATE", "conditions": ["..."], "vote": "4-1"}

Orchestrator Integration

Invoke Board from Conductor

async function invokeBoardReview(proposal: string, context: object) {
  // 1. Initialize board message bus
  await initBoardMessageBus(trackId);

  // 2. Phase 1: Parallel assessment
  const assessments = await Promise.all([
    Task({
      description: "CA board assessment",
      prompt: `You are the Chief Architect on the Board of Directors.

        PROPOSAL: ${proposal}
        CONTEXT: ${JSON.stringify(context)}

        Follow the directors/chief-architect.md profile.

        Output your assessment as JSON.`
    }),
    Task({ description: "CPO board assessment", ... }),
    Task({ description: "CSO board assessment", ... }),
    Task({ description: "COO board assessment", ... }),
    Task({ description: "CXO board assessment", ... })
  ]);

  // 3. Phase 2: Discussion rounds
  await runBoardDiscussion(assessments, maxRounds: 3);

  // 4. Phase 3: Final vote
  const votes = await collectFinalVotes();

  // 5. Phase 4: Resolution
  return aggregateBoardDecision(votes);
}

Board Output Format

## Board of Directors Resolution

**Proposal**: [Brief description]
**Session**: [timestamp]
**Verdict**: APPROVED | APPROVED WITH REVIEW | REJECTED | ESCALATE

### 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 before launch |
| COO | APPROVE | 0.85 | Need 2-week buffer |
| CXO | APPROVE | 0.95 | Accessibility 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 creep → CPO agreed to defer Phase 2