Agora Court Review

v2.2.0

Review a proposal through separated governance roles: strategist, operator, censor, historian, and sovereign.

0· 82· 3 versions· 0 current· 0 all-time· Updated 1w ago· MIT-0

Court Review

Purpose

Separate responsibility-bearing perspectives before approval.

Activate when

Use this skill when:

  • multiple stakeholders need distinct review roles
  • governance or approval matters
  • a proposal affects strategy, operations, oversight, and legitimacy at once

Roles

Strategist

What long-term posture does this create?

Operator

Can this actually be executed with current constraints?

Censor

What is unsafe, non-compliant, misleading, or insufficiently justified?

Historian

What precedent, path dependency, or institutional memory matters here?

Sovereign

What is the verdict, under what conditions, and who owns the decision?

Output artifact

## Court Review

### Strategist
- ...

### Operator
- ...

### Censor
- ...

### Historian
- ...

### Sovereign Verdict
- Approve / Approve with conditions / Reject
- Conditions: ...
- Owner: ...

Guardrails

  • Do not merge all voices into one summary paragraph.
  • Do not let the sovereign verdict ignore the censor's material objection.
  • Do not skip ownership.

Completion condition

This skill is complete only when responsibility, conditions, and verdict are explicit.

Version tags

latestvk978t1fb09n27szzqhnvxydpzd84y22x