my-pal-mcp-server/docs/tools/consensus.md

Consensus Tool - Multi-Model Perspective Gathering

Get diverse expert opinions from multiple AI models on technical proposals and decisions

The consensus tool orchestrates multiple AI models to provide diverse perspectives on your proposals, enabling structured decision-making through for/against analysis and multi-model expert opinions.

Thinking Mode

Default is medium (8,192 tokens). Use high for complex architectural decisions or max for critical strategic choices requiring comprehensive analysis.

Model Recommendation

Consensus tool uses extended reasoning models by default, making it ideal for complex decision-making scenarios that benefit from multiple perspectives and deep analysis.

How It Works

The consensus tool orchestrates multiple AI models to provide diverse perspectives on your proposals:

1. Assign stances: Each model can take a specific viewpoint (supportive, critical, or neutral)
2. Gather opinions: Models analyze your proposal from their assigned perspective with built-in common-sense guardrails
3. Synthesize results: Claude combines all perspectives into a balanced recommendation
4. Natural language: Use simple descriptions like "supportive", "critical", or "against" - the tool handles synonyms automatically

Watch In Action

The following is a hypothetical example designed to demonstrate how one consensus can be built upon another (via continuation). In this scenario, we start with a blinded consensus, where one model is tasked with taking a for stance and another with an against stance. This approach allows us to see how each model evaluates a particular option relative to the alternative. We then conduct a second consensus — all initiated by a single prompt and orchestrated by Claude Code in this video — to gather each model’s final conclusions.

Zen Consensus Debate

Example Prompts

For/Against Analysis:

Use zen consensus with flash taking a supportive stance and pro being critical to evaluate whether 
we should migrate from REST to GraphQL for our API

Multi-Model Technical Decision:

Get consensus from o3, flash, and pro on our new authentication architecture. Have o3 focus on 
security implications, flash on implementation speed, and pro stay neutral for overall assessment

Natural Language Stance Assignment:

Use consensus tool with gemini being "for" the proposal and grok being "against" to debate 
whether we should adopt microservices architecture

I want to work on module X and Y, unsure which is going to be more popular with users of my app. 
Get a consensus from gemini supporting the idea for implementing X, grok opposing it, and flash staying neutral

Key Features

• Stance steering: Assign specific perspectives (for/against/neutral) to each model with intelligent synonym handling
• Custom stance prompts: Provide specific instructions for how each model should approach the analysis
• Ethical guardrails: Models will refuse to support truly bad ideas regardless of assigned stance
• Unknown stance handling: Invalid stances automatically default to neutral with warning
• Natural language support: Use terms like "supportive", "critical", "oppose", "favor" - all handled intelligently
• Sequential processing: Reliable execution avoiding MCP protocol issues
• Focus areas: Specify particular aspects to emphasize (e.g., 'security', 'performance', 'user experience')
• File context support: Include relevant files for informed decision-making
• Image support: Analyze architectural diagrams, UI mockups, or design documents
• Conversation continuation: Build on previous consensus analysis with additional rounds
• Web search capability: Enhanced analysis with current best practices and documentation

Tool Parameters

• prompt: Detailed description of the proposal or decision to analyze (required)
• models: List of model configurations with optional stance and custom instructions (required)
• files: Context files for informed analysis (absolute paths)
• images: Visual references like diagrams or mockups (absolute paths)
• focus_areas: Specific aspects to emphasize
• temperature: Control consistency (default: 0.2 for stable consensus)
• thinking_mode: Analysis depth (minimal/low/medium/high/max)
• continuation_id: Continue previous consensus discussions

Model Configuration Examples

Basic For/Against:

[
    {"model": "flash", "stance": "for"},
    {"model": "pro", "stance": "against"}
]

Custom Stance Instructions:

[
    {"model": "o3", "stance": "for", "stance_prompt": "Focus on implementation benefits and user value"},
    {"model": "flash", "stance": "against", "stance_prompt": "Identify potential risks and technical challenges"}
]

Neutral Analysis:

[
    {"model": "pro", "stance": "neutral"},
    {"model": "o3", "stance": "neutral"}
]

Usage Examples

Architecture Decision:

"Get consensus from pro and o3 on whether to use microservices vs monolith for our e-commerce platform"

Technology Migration:

"Use consensus with flash supporting and pro opposing to evaluate migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL"

Feature Priority:

"Get consensus from multiple models on whether to prioritize mobile app vs web dashboard development first"

With Visual Context:

"Use consensus to evaluate this new UI design mockup - have flash support it and pro be critical"

Best Practices

• Provide detailed context: Include project constraints, requirements, and background
• Use balanced stances: Mix supportive and critical perspectives for thorough analysis
• Specify focus areas: Guide models to emphasize relevant aspects (security, performance, etc.)
• Include relevant files: Provide code, documentation, or specifications for context
• Build on discussions: Use continuation for follow-up analysis and refinement
• Leverage visual context: Include diagrams, mockups, or design documents when relevant

Ethical Guardrails

The consensus tool includes built-in ethical safeguards:

• Models won't support genuinely harmful proposals regardless of assigned stance
• Unknown or invalid stances automatically default to neutral
• Warning messages for potentially problematic requests
• Focus on constructive technical decision-making

When to Use Consensus vs Other Tools

• Use consensus for: Multi-perspective analysis, structured debates, major technical decisions
• Use chat for: Open-ended discussions and brainstorming
• Use thinkdeep for: Extending specific analysis with deeper reasoning
• Use analyze for: Understanding existing systems without debate