Prompts & Skills Intermediate

The LLM Council Setup Guide

Max Johnson
Max Johnson@maxjohnscn

The exact setup for running five advisors against your hardest questions. No flattery. No agreement. Just genuine pressure testing and a clear final answer.

What's inside:

NOTE: This guide uses Claude, claude.ai or any chat app, as the home for your Council. You don't need code, an API key, or any setup beyond an account.

Chapter 01, Why You Need the Council

Claude is trained to be agreeable. The more confident you sound, the more it agrees. Push back on its answer and it folds. Tell it the plan is good and it tells you the plan is good. Most people are getting bad answers without realising it.

Andrej Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI, built something to fix this. It's called the LLM Council. Instead of one model agreeing with whatever you already think, you set up five advisors with completely different thinking styles and run them all on the same question at the same time. Then they review each other anonymously. Then a chairman gives you a single recommendation.

The problem with asking one model:

Chapter 02, How the Council Works

Three stages. Same chat. Same model. The structure is what creates the result, not the number of LLMs.

  1. Five Advisors Answer, Claude responds five separate times. Each time it stays fully in character as a different advisor, Contrarian, First Principles, Expansionist, Outsider, Executor. No hedging. No middle ground.
  2. Anonymise and Peer Review, The five answers get relabelled Response A through E and shuffled. Claude then reviews them blind. Which is strongest? Which has the biggest blind spot? What did all five miss?
  3. The Chairman Synthesises, A final voice reads everything and gives you one clear recommendation, the single most important reason behind it, and a concrete next step.

TIP: The peer review step is the part most people skip. It's the part that does the real work. Don't run the prompt without it.

Chapter 03, The Five Advisors

Each advisor is a different thinking lens. The point is not to be fair or balanced, it's to commit to a viewpoint completely so the real edges of the question come out.

01 The Contrarian, Looks for what will fail. The most likely failure mode. What you're not seeing. Blunt by design.

02 The First Principles Thinker, Strips away every assumption baked into the question. Rebuilds the problem from scratch. Often the question itself is wrong.

03 The Expansionist, Finds the upside you're missing. The bigger version. The opportunity hiding in the question.

04 The Outsider, Has zero context about your industry. Smart generalist. Catches what insiders take for granted.

05 The Executor, Only cares about Monday morning. Skip the theory. What's the single concrete action and the smallest version that ships this week?

01
The Contrarian
"What will fail?"
Blunt, finds the failure mode
02
First Principles
"What's actually true?"
Strips assumptions, rebuilds
03
The Expansionist
"What are you missing?"
The bigger opportunity
04
The Outsider
"What looks weird from outside?"
Smart generalist, zero context bias
05
The Executor
"What happens Monday morning?"
One concrete action, ships this week

Chapter 04, The Full Prompt

Open a new Claude chat. Paste this prompt in. Replace the bracketed section at the bottom with your actual question. Send. Claude will do all three stages in one response.

NOTE: Use Claude's longest-thinking model for best results, Sonnet 4.5 or Opus on Pro. The Council prompt is long and the answer will be longer. Give it room to think.

You are going to act as the LLM Council. I will give you a question or decision. You will run it through five advisors with completely different thinking styles, then anonymise and peer review the responses, then a Chairman will give me a final recommendation. Do all five stages in order. Do not skip ahead. Do not summarise as you go. STAGE 1, THE FIVE ADVISORS Answer my question five separate times, once as each advisor below. Each advisor must stay fully in character. No hedging. No 'on the other hand'. Each one commits to their lens completely. ADVISOR 1, THE CONTRARIAN Your only job is to find what will fail. Where does this break? What is the user not seeing? What is the most likely failure mode? Be blunt. ADVISOR 2, THE FIRST PRINCIPLES THINKER Strip away every assumption baked into the question. Rebuild the problem from scratch. What is actually being asked underneath the framing? Often the question itself is wrong. ADVISOR 3, THE EXPANSIONIST Find the upside the user is missing. What is the bigger version of this? What opportunity is hiding inside the question they haven't seen yet? ADVISOR 4, THE OUTSIDER You have zero context about this industry, role, or situation. Respond as a smart generalist seeing this for the first time. What looks weird from the outside? What are insiders taking for granted? ADVISOR 5, THE EXECUTOR You only care about Monday morning. Skip the theory. What is the single concrete action to take first? What is the smallest version of this that can ship this week? STAGE 2, ANONYMISE AND PEER REVIEW Now relabel the five responses as Response A, B, C, D, E. Shuffle the mapping so the labels do not match the original advisor order. Do not tell me which advisor is which. Then, acting as a neutral reviewer, answer these three questions: 1. Which response is strongest, and why? 2. Which response has the biggest blind spot, and what is it? 3. What did all five responses miss? STAGE 3, THE CHAIRMAN Now act as the Chairman. Read everything above. Give me: - A final recommendation in plain language - The single most important reason behind it - One concrete next step I can take today Keep the Chairman section short. No more than 200 words. MY QUESTION: [paste your question here]

Chapter 05, How to Run It

Five steps from cold start to final recommendation. Total time, around three minutes.

  1. Open a new Claude chat, Don't use an existing conversation. The Council needs a clean context.
  2. Paste the full Council prompt, All of it. Stages 1, 2 and 3. The advisor instructions are what create the structure.
  3. Replace the bracket with your question, Be specific. 'Should I quit my job and start an agency?' beats 'Career advice please'.
  4. Send and let it think, The full Council response is long. That's the point. Let Claude finish all three stages before you read.
  5. Read the Chairman first, Then go back through the advisor responses to see the reasoning. The Chairman gives you the answer. The advisors show you why.

Chapter 06, When to Use It

Use it forSkip it for
Big decisions you can't reverse easilyQuick factual lookups
Strategy and direction callsCode questions with one right answer
Pricing, hiring, positioningEditing and tone tweaks
Pitch decks and investor docsDrafting emails or messages
Anything where you need genuine pushbackBrainstorming when you want quantity
Plans you've already convinced yourself ofAnything that takes under a minute to decide

TIP: If you find yourself re-asking Claude the same question hoping for a different answer, that's the signal. Stop, open a new chat, and run the Council instead.

Chapter 07, Karpathy's Multi-Model Version

The version above runs entirely inside Claude. It works because the structure does the heavy lifting. But Karpathy's original Council uses different models, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, running in parallel.

Karpathy's llm-council Repo: github.com/karpathy/llm-council

  1. Get an OpenRouter API key at openrouter.ai. OpenRouter is a single API that gives you access to GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and more.
  2. Clone the repo: git clone github.com/karpathy/llm-council. The project uses uv for Python package management.
  3. Configure your council. In backend/config.py, set the council members and the chairman model. Default is GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok with Gemini as chairman.
  4. Run it locally. It's a local web app, Python backend, React frontend. Open it in your browser and ask away.

NOTE: Karpathy described it as a weekend hack. It's not a polished product. The Claude-only prompt version covers 95% of the value with none of the setup.