Council-style codebase-assessment plugin for Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor.
Point it at a codebase. An 11-seat team across three subcommittees (research, technical, skeptics) plus a standalone legal red-flag check decides what it is, where it fits, what breaks it, what kills it, and how to know whether the assessment is any good.
The package contains 6 skills and 11 agent definitions. The manifests for all three supported runtimes point at the same skills/ directory, so the skill inventory has one source of truth.
/plugin marketplace add actually-useful-ai/team
/plugin install team@lukeslp-team
Import https://github.com/actually-useful-ai/team from the Plugin Directory,
then install Team from the imported marketplace.
cursor-agent plugin marketplace add https://github.com/actually-useful-ai/team
cursor-agentIn the interactive agent, open /plugin, install Team at user scope, and it
will be available to both the IDE and CLI.
Each runtime has its own manifest; all three load the shared skills/
directory. Cursor also loads the shared agents/ directory explicitly.
/team # assess the current directory
/team src/ # assess a specific path
/team ~/projects/whatcolor # assess a project elsewhere on disk
/team "Should I open-source this?" # team debate on a questionA short verdict from the executive chair, structured as:
- Decision: one line.
- The assessment: what it is, where it fits, what it's good for.
- What kills it: kill criteria, top three risks, the strongest attack.
- Verification plan: how to know if the assessment is right.
- Legal red flags: license/IP blockers, or all-clear.
- Dissenting opinions: preserved, not flattened.
- Consultant notes: what external models said when they could be reached.
Research (facts, not opinions)
recon: maps the codebase. Languages, dependencies, public surfaces, internal patterns.scout: external prior art. Comparable projects, technical approaches, and verifiable current sources; optional Craft Ask leads when explicitly authorized.
Technical
architect: fit with the existing codebase patterns. Chairs the committee.greybeard: old-engineer review of what breaks at 10x. Encodes the Google SRE Book (chapter 22, four golden signals), Brendan Gregg's USE method. Optional consult: Codex, Grok.safety: failure recovery, fallbacks, graceful degradation.tester: verification strategy, regression criteria.
Skeptics
breaker: adversarial attack on the assessment. Concrete failure scenarios only.cynic: pre-mortem (Klein 2007), kill criteria (Annie Duke), Amazon working-backwards critique. Must always disagree. Optional consult: full/consensusfan-out.
Legal check (standalone)
legal: IP, licensing, attribution. A red-flag list of license/IP blockers that would stop the project from being shipped or open-sourced. Looks at every dep's license and the project's own.
Chair and polish
executive: reads the committee reports plus the legal list, synthesizes the verdict, preserves dissent.editor: strips machine-generated writing indicators. Post-verdict only.
Several seats can use native read-only agents for diverse priors. When Luke
explicitly authorizes outside-model consultation or fan-out, Team can also use
Craft's optional craft-ask entry point. Craft owns provider/model routing and
provenance; Team retains its native fallback and works without Craft or external
credentials.
The full fan-out lives at skills/consensus/ and is invoked by the cynic seat as the panel of last resort.
A single LLM pass will produce an assessment that sounds confident regardless of merit. Adversarial review: especially from seats anchored to canonical frameworks (SRE Book, USE method, Klein pre-mortem, Annie Duke kill criteria), catches the failure modes a confident single pass misses. The subcommittee structure prevents the executive from drowning in eleven separate voices.
The design is sympathetic to the parallel-critics + single-synthesis pattern that holds up better in recent multi-agent research (arxiv 2509.05396, 2025) than round-table debate.
Luke Steuber · luke@lukesteuber.com · https://lukesteuber.com