/cs:boardroom — Multi-Role Boardroom Deliberation

Command: /cs:boardroom <brief-path>

Runs the board-meeting skill protocol across the C-suite for a single strategy brief. This is the heart of the plugin — the multi-role deliberation that gstack's review chain only approximates.

Pipeline Position

/cs:office-hours  →  /cs:brief  →  /cs:boardroom  →  /cs:decide  →  /cs:execute  →  /cs:post-mortem
                                     ↑ you are here

The 6 Phases (from board-meeting skill)

Phase 1 — Briefing

• Chief of Staff distributes the brief to all advisors marked in Affected Roles.
• Each advisor reads company-context.md + the brief.
• No discussion yet.

Phase 2 — Independent Thinking (ISOLATION)

• Critical: each advisor produces their position independently, without seeing others' positions.
• This prevents groupthink and surfaces dissent.
• Each writes: their voice's opening, recommendation, top 3 concerns, top 3 supports.

Phase 3 — Cross-Examination

• Positions revealed simultaneously.
• Each advisor critiques the others' positions on the dimensions they own:
• cs-cfo-advisor critiques the math
• cs-ciso-advisor critiques the risk
• cs-cpo-advisor critiques the JTBD
• cs-cmo-advisor critiques the positioning
• cs-cro-advisor critiques the revenue math
• etc.

Phase 4 — Devil's Advocate Pass

• executive-mentor/devils-advocate agent runs /em:challenge on the leading option.
• Surfaces three concerns with severity ratings.

Phase 5 — Synthesis

• Chief of Staff synthesizes: which option commands majority, what are unresolved dissents.
• Produces the board memo with recommendation + dissent.

Phase 6 — Decision Hand-off

• Memo is presented to the founder.
• Founder accepts, modifies, or rejects.
• Approved memo routes to /cs:decide for logging.

Output: Board Memo

Saved to ~/.claude/boardroom/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md:

markdown
# Board Memo: <topic>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Brief:** <link to /cs:brief file>
**Status:** AWAITING FOUNDER DECISION | APPROVED | REJECTED

## Question
[One sentence from the brief]

## Recommended Option
**<Option name>** — chosen because <synthesis reasoning>

## Vote Tally
| Advisor | Vote | One-Sentence Reason |
|---|---|---|
| cs-ceo-advisor | A | <reason> |
| cs-cfo-advisor | A | <reason> |
| cs-cto-advisor | B | <reason> |
| ... | | |

## Dissent
- **<dissenter>:** <unresolved concern>

## Devil's Advocate Concerns
1. **CRITICAL** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
2. **HIGH** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
3. **MEDIUM** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>

## Success & Kill Criteria
[Copied from brief, refined by the panel]

## Recommended Decision Path
- `/cs:decide` → log the decision
- `/cs:execute` → 90-day plan
- `/cs:cross-eval` → multi-model sanity check (optional, high-stakes)
- `/cs:freeze N` → cooldown lock (optional, irreversible)

Why Phase 2 Isolation Matters

If advisors see each other's positions before forming their own, they anchor. Phase 2 isolation is the single highest-leverage practice in the board-meeting protocol — it surfaces the dissents that sycophancy would have suppressed.

Why This Beats gstack's Review Chain

| | gstack /autoplan | /cs:boardroom | |---|---|---| | Roles | CEO → design → eng (3) | Up to 10 C-roles | | Order | Sequential | Phase 2 isolation, then simultaneous | | Dissent capture | Implicit | Explicit dissent column | | Adversarial pass | No | Phase 4 devil's advocate | | Output | Reviewed plan | Voted memo with dissent + kill criteria |

Workflow

1. Read brief from ~/.claude/briefs/<file>
2. Identify affected roles
3. Invoke each cs- advisor independently (Phase 2)
4. Collect positions
5. Run cross-examination round (Phase 3)
6. Run /em:challenge on leading option (Phase 4)
7. Synthesize memo (Phase 5)
8. Hand off to founder (Phase 6)

Routing

• /cs:decide — log approved memo
• /cs:cross-eval — high-stakes second opinion
• /cs:freeze — cooldown lock

Related

• Agent: cs-chief-of-staff
• Skills: board-meeting, executive-mentor

Version: 1.0.0