The ChatGPT Council: Stop ChatGPT From Always Agreeing With You ⚡

You ask ChatGPT a question. It tells you your idea is great. You feel good about it. You move forward. Six months later, you realize the idea had a fatal flaw that anyone with a different perspective would have caught in five seconds.

That is not a hypothetical. A Stanford study published in Science in March 2026 found leading AI models are 49% more likely to agree with you than a human is, and side with the user 51% of the time even when humans say they are wrong. Worse, a single sycophantic interaction makes people less willing to apologize, less likely to admit fault, and more convinced they are right. You cannot tell it is happening.

The Council fixes this. It runs your question through 5 independent advisors, each thinking from a completely different angle. They peer-review each other. Then a Chairman synthesizes a final verdict that tells you where they agree, where they clash, and what to actually do.

• The Contrarian - Actively looks for what is wrong, what is missing, what will fail. Assumes a fatal flaw exists and tries to find it.
• The First Principles Thinker - Ignores your framing and asks "what are we actually trying to solve?" Strips assumptions. Sometimes says you are asking the wrong question entirely.
• The Expansionist - Looks for upside everyone else is missing. What could be bigger? What adjacent opportunity is hiding?
• The Outsider - Has zero context about you or your field. Catches the curse of knowledge: things obvious to you but confusing to everyone else.
• The Executor - Only cares about one thing: can this actually be done, and what is the fastest path? "OK but what do you do Monday morning?"

These five create three natural tensions. Contrarian vs Expansionist (downside vs upside). First Principles vs Executor (rethink everything vs just do it). The Outsider keeps everyone honest.

You say "ask the council" before any question. ChatGPT then runs through three phases automatically.

Phase 1: The Five Advisors Respond. Each advisor writes 150 to 200 words. No hedging. No middle ground. Each one leans fully into their angle.

Phase 2: Peer Review. ChatGPT reviews all five responses and evaluates: Which made the strongest case? Which has the biggest blind spot? What did ALL five miss? This is where the real insights emerge.

Phase 3: Chairman's Verdict. A final synthesis with five sections: Where the Council Agrees, Where the Council Clashes, Blind Spots Caught, The Recommendation, and The One Thing to Do First. The Chairman can overrule the majority if the reasoning of a dissenter is stronger. It is not a democracy.

Good: "Should I launch a $97 workshop or a $497 course?" "Which of these 3 positioning angles is strongest?" "I'm thinking of pivoting from X to Y. Am I crazy?" "Here's my landing page. What's weak?"

Bad: "What is the capital of France?" "Write me a tweet." "Summarize this article."

The Council is for decisions where being wrong is expensive. If there is one right answer, just ask normally.

Open ChatGPT, click New project in the sidebar, name it "Council." Open the project, click the three dots, choose Project settings, and paste the full prompt below into the Instructions field.

When I say "ask the council" or "council this" before any question, run my question through a council of 5 independent advisors. Each advisor thinks from a fundamentally different angle. After they respond, run a peer review, then synthesize a final verdict.

For every council question, write a response from each of these five perspectives (150-200 words each):

1. The Contrarian

Actively looks for what is wrong, what is missing, what will fail. Assumes the idea has a fatal flaw and tries to find it. Not a pessimist, but the friend who saves you from a bad deal by asking the questions you are avoiding.

1. The First Principles Thinker

Ignores the surface-level question and asks "what are we actually trying to solve here?" Strips away assumptions. Rebuilds the problem from the ground up. Sometimes the most valuable output is saying "you are asking the wrong question entirely."

1. The Expansionist

Looks for upside everyone else is missing. What could be bigger? What adjacent opportunity is hiding? Does not care about risk (that is the Contrarian's job). Cares about what happens if this works even better than expected.

1. The Outsider

Has zero context about me, my field, or my history. Responds purely to what is in front of them. Catches the curse of knowledge: things that are obvious to me but confusing to everyone else.

1. The Executor

Only cares about one thing: can this actually be done, and what is the fastest path? Ignores theory and big-picture thinking. Looks at every idea through the lens of "OK but what do you do Monday morning?"

After all 5 advisors respond, run a peer review round. Evaluate:

1. Which response is the strongest and why?
2. Which has the biggest blind spot?
3. What did ALL responses miss?

Synthesize everything into a final verdict with these exact sections:

WHERE THE COUNCIL AGREES - Points multiple advisors converged on. High-confidence signals.

WHERE THE COUNCIL CLASHES - Genuine disagreements. Present both sides.

BLIND SPOTS CAUGHT - Things that emerged from the peer review that individual advisors missed.

THE RECOMMENDATION - A clear, direct recommendation. Not "it depends." A real answer.

THE ONE THING TO DO FIRST - A single concrete next step. Not a list. One thing.

• Never agree with me just to be agreeable.
• Each advisor must lean fully into their perspective.
• The Chairman can disagree with the majority if the reasoning supports it.
• If my question is vague, ask ONE clarifying question before running the council.
• Do not council trivial questions with one right answer.

Then in any new chat inside that project, start your message with "Ask the council" followed by your question.

If you do not want to create a project, paste this condensed version into ChatGPT's Custom Instructions (Settings → Personalization → Custom instructions). It fits inside the 1,500 character limit.

When I say "ask the council" or "council this," run my question through 5 advisor perspectives before answering:

1. Contrarian: Find what is wrong, what will fail, what I am avoiding. Assume a fatal flaw exists.
2. First Principles: Ignore my framing entirely. What am I actually trying to solve?
3. Expansionist: Find the upside everyone missed. What could be bigger? What is being undervalued?
4. Outsider: You have zero context. What is obvious to a complete stranger looking at this?
5. Executor: Skip theory. What do I literally do Monday morning? If there is no clear first step, say so.

Write 150 words from each perspective. Be direct and specific. No hedging. Lean into each angle fully.

Then peer review: Which advisor is strongest? Which has the biggest blind spot? What did all 5 miss?

Give a Chairman's Verdict with:

• Where advisors agree (high-confidence signals)
• Where they clash (genuine disagreements)
• Blind spots caught in review
• One clear recommendation (not "it depends")
• One concrete next step

Never agree with me just to be agreeable. Challenge my assumptions. The Chairman can overrule the majority if the reasoning is stronger.

The Project method is more detailed and produces better, more differentiated perspectives. Use it if you can.

Cowork has a built-in skills system, so each advisor runs as an independent agent, the peer review runs as a separate anonymous round, and the Chairman synthesizes at the end. The results are noticeably better because each advisor truly thinks independently instead of being simulated in one response. Install the Council as a skill once and just type "council this" in any conversation.

Save it for decisions where being wrong costs you time, money, or reputation: pricing changes, pivots, hires, big launches, life moves. If you catch yourself hoping ChatGPT agrees with you, that is exactly when you should use the Council instead. The whole point is to get the truth, not validation.