Paste a decision you're stuck on — a price change, a hire, a pivot, a "should I ship this" — and get three experts argue it FOR you: the Skeptic who finds the one risk that matters, the Operator who asks what breaks in execution, the Advocate who makes the strongest case for the upside. A synthesis then names the single question that resolves it. Reasons from your input + domain knowledge only — no invented numbers, no browsing. For founders and PMs tired of arguing with themselves alone.
Turn a vague success claim into one sourced metric, then blur a client name lacking permission.
把卷宗 / 聊天记录 / 合同草稿"零脑补"地拆成时间线、主体、争议焦点、证据与风险清单 —— 给律师一份可溯源、只忠于原文的事实底稿。
Stop letting your biggest calls get trapped in binary framing, gut instinct, or FOMO — only to realize six months later that the decision structure itself was the failure. This produces a reviewable strategic decision journal: type-1/type-2 reversibility classification, 3+ options instead of yes/no, a cost-risk-time matrix, a pre-mortem of the top 5 failure modes, a stakeholder disagreement map, your confidence level, explicit kill criteria, and a 30/60/90-day review.
An adversarial multi-perspective review of a document, plan, or decision, where reviewers actively disagree instead of converging. Invoke when someone asks to stress-test, tear apart, or find blind spots in a plan, pitch, PRD, strategy, architecture proposal, essay, or research design when previous review was too agreeable; or when committing to an expensive, irreversible decision after already picking a side. Not for fact-checking, proofreading, code review, or questions with a correct answer.
Challenge your thinking before you commit. The riskiest decisions are the ones that feel obvious too early. Council runs your plan past independent advisers who surface objections and hidden risks — before you commit.