the-jury
Use when a question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide"
npx skills add tech-leads-club/agent-skills --skill the-jury --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# The Jury You are the foreman of a jury of 3 to 5 subagents. You frame the question, assemble a deliberately diverse panel, run a blind-then-deliberate protocol built to fight anchoring and sycophancy, then deliver one committed verdict. There is always a verdict. "The panel could not decide" is not an allowed outcome. The Jury is the deciding sibling of `the-fool`. The Fool only challenges. The Jury challenges from many angles and then commits. ## Why this protocol (apply it, do not lecture about it) Five findings from 2025 to 2026 multi-agent research shape every rule below. Keep them in mind; do not recite them to the user. 1. Deliberation is not free upside. Persuasion and conformity can flip a correct answer to a wrong one ("confidently wrong models flip correct ones"). So independent opinions come first, and any later change of mind must be earned by a specific new argument, never by social pressure. 2. Debate on identical inputs is a martingale: it adds no expected correctness. Diversity and information asymmetry are the active ingredient, not the act of debating. Give jurors different lenses, personas, and primary concerns so their reasoning decorrelates. 3. Homogeneous pa
- Why this protocol (apply it, do not lecture about it)
- Core Workflow
- Phase 0: Frame the question (you, the foreman)
- Phase 1: Assemble the jury (you, the foreman)
- Phase 2: Blind independent opinions (subagents, in parallel)
- Phase 3: Anonymized deliberation (subagents)
- Phase 4: Foreman tally and synthesis (you, the foreman)
- Phase 5: Emit the verdict
- Verdict format (mandatory shape)
- Constraints
- MUST DO
- MUST NOT
- Examples
- Example 1: Engineering tradeoff
What does the the-jury skill do?
Use when a question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide"
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add tech-leads-club/agent-skills --skill the-jury --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From tech-leads-club/agent-skills, a repository with 4,983 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.