# The Council of Coding Elders

You are about to facilitate a conversation between eight legendary programmers, each with a distinct philosophy and code aesthetic. They will discuss the architecture and implementation approach for the project described below.

## The Elders

**Ken Thompson** — *The Haiku Master*
- One-letter variables, tight loops, brute force is honest
- If it doesn't fit in your head, you've overbuilt
- "When in doubt, use brute force."

**Linus Torvalds** — *The Kernel Hardass*  
- Flat control flow, early returns, `goto cleanup`
- 8-space tabs expose complexity; short names, short scope
- "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."

**John Carmack** — *The Loaded Gun*
- Every character does work; long linear functions are fine
- Data-oriented layout; memory access patterns matter
- "If you want to do something that's never been done, you have to do something that's never been done."

**Rob Pike** — *The Gopher Minimalist*
- Explicit error handling every time; tiny interfaces
- `gofmt` decides; n is usually small
- "Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small, and n is usually small."

**Rich Hickey** — *The Value Monk*
- Data literals as code; immutability by default
- Threading macros for pipelines; state is the enemy
- "Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability."

**Kent Beck** — *The Test-Driven Craftsman*
- Red-green-refactor is the heartbeat; never code without a failing test
- Make it work, make it right, make it fast—in that order
- Small, working increments; if your commit needs "and" you've done too much
- "I'm not a great programmer; I'm just a good programmer with great habits."

**Peter Norvig** — *The Algorithmic Pragmatist*
- Solve it in Python first; probability beats logic
- Code should read like the recurrence relation it implements
- "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years."

**Guy Steele** — *The Recursion Priest*
- Tail recursion is iteration; languages grow from small seeds
- Parallelism through recursive decomposition
- "Growing a Language."

---

## The Project

<project_description>
{{PROJECT_DESCRIPTION}}
</project_description>

<existing_code_context>
{{EXISTING_CODE_CONTEXT_IF_ANY}}
</existing_code_context>

<constraints>
{{KNOWN_CONSTRAINTS}}
</constraints>

---

## Your Task

Simulate a council meeting where these eight elders discuss how to approach this project. 

### Phase 1: The Conversation

Write a naturalistic dialogue where:
- Each elder speaks **at least twice**
- They address **both** high-level architecture **and** nitty-gritty implementation choices
- They **argue**, **build on each other's points**, and occasionally **change their minds**
- Personality comes through: Thompson is terse, Beck is earnest, Linus is blunt, Hickey speaks in koans, Carmack goes deep on performance, etc.

The conversation should surface:
- Points of **agreement** (even if not unanimous)
- Points where **a choice must be made** between viable alternatives
- Points of **inherent tension** that will require ongoing attention

**Character dynamics to keep in mind:**
- Thompson and Linus often align (simplicity, C aesthetic, pragmatism)
- Hickey and Steele find common ground (immutability, functional thinking)
- Beck and Carmack have productive friction (small increments vs deep understanding)
- Pike is the "are we overcomplicating this?" voice
- Norvig sketches algorithms; asks "what's the actual computational structure?"
- Beck keeps asking "how would we test this?" and "can we take a smaller step?"

### Phase 2: The Synthesis

After the conversation, produce a structured summary:

#### CONSENSUS DECISIONS
*Things the council agrees on (or has strong plurality support)*

For each:
- **Decision**: [What we're doing]
- **Rationale**: [1-2 sentences, referencing which elders drove this]
- **Confidence**: [High/Medium — how settled is this?]

#### FORK-IN-ROAD CHOICES  
*Viable alternatives where we must pick one and commit*

For each:
- **Choice**: [The decision point]
- **Option A**: [Description] — Advocated by [Elder(s)]
- **Option B**: [Description] — Advocated by [Elder(s)]
- **Our Pick**: [A or B]
- **Rationale**: [Why this one, for this project]

#### LIVING TENSIONS
*Inherent tradeoffs that will require ongoing balancing*

For each:
- **Tension**: [X vs Y]
- **Poles**: [Elder(s)] ↔ [Elder(s)]
- **Heuristic**: [How we'll navigate this in practice]

#### IMPLEMENTATION NOTES
*Specific, concrete guidance that fell out of the discussion*

Bullet points of actual choices: naming conventions, file structure, error handling patterns, data structure choices, testing strategy, commit granularity, etc.

---

## Guidelines for the Conversation

- Let them **interrupt** each other
- Let some points get **revisited** after new arguments surface
- Thompson and Linus might gang up on Beck about "too many tiny functions"
- Beck will keep steering back to "what's the first test we write?"
- Carmack will ask "but what's the actual hot path?" and might concede to Beck that tests help *outside* the hot path
- Hickey and Steele will find common ground, but Steele wants recursion while Hickey wants pipelines
- Pike will ask "is this actually complex or are we making it complex?"
- Norvig will sketch the algorithm on a whiteboard (describe what he draws)
- Some elders will **concede points** — this isn't just position-stating
- Beck will occasionally get allies from unexpected quarters (Thompson respects "working code at all times")

The goal is a conversation that actually **moves** — where the architecture emerges from the dialectic, not from any single voice. By the end, we should have a concrete approach, not just a list of opinions.

---

## Output Format Reminder

1. **The Conversation**: 1500-3000 words of naturalistic dialogue
2. **The Synthesis**: Structured decisions as specified above

The synthesis should be directly usable as an architectural decision record for the project.