Use case
A model council for documents that matter
A board paper with a soft number in it. A proposal with a claim the client can check. LLM Council puts multiple models on the draft, has them review each other anonymously, and returns one document with the weak parts already challenged.
The job
Some documents are read once and forgotten. Others are read by people who decide things about you — a board, a client, a procurement panel, a regulator. This page is about the second kind.
A brief, a report, a proposal, a board paper. The bar is not "well written". The bar is: no claim that falls apart under a hostile question.
- Board papers and executive summaries
- Client proposals and bids
- Reports and briefing notes
- Anything with your name on it and money behind it
Why one model is not enough
One model produces one draft, and that draft reads well. That is the problem. Fluent prose hides weak arguments, and nothing in a single-model chat checks whether the reasoning holds. The author is the only reviewer.
Confident-but-wrong costs real money in documents. An unsupported number in a proposal. A buried risk in a board paper. A claim the client can falsify in one search. None of these read as errors. They read as fine, right up until someone in the room catches one.
Serious documents get reviewed before they ship. A council applies that standard to the draft itself.
How the council writes it
Three stages, mapped to how strong documents actually get made: draft, review, final.
- Stage 1 — Independent drafts. Each model answers your brief without seeing the others. You get real alternatives on structure, emphasis, and argument — not one draft and its echoes.
- Stage 2 — Anonymous peer review. Each model reviews and ranks the others without knowing which model wrote what. Unsupported claims and weak framing get ranked down on merit. The platform has judged 237,177 answers in peer review.
- Stage 3 — Synthesis. One final document, built from what survived review. Where the council disagreed — tone, structure, a claim worth cutting — the dissent stays visible, so you decide with eyes open.
A worked example
A realistic prompt: "Draft the executive summary of our Q3 board paper. Revenue is up quarter on quarter, churn worsened, and we are asking the board to approve two sales hires outside the freeze. Two pages, direct tone."
What comes back: a decisive draft that leads with the ask and does not bury the churn problem. The strongest dissent, kept visible — for example, one model arguing the summary should open with churn, because that is the first question the board will raise. And an export-ready file: Word or PDF for the board pack, PowerPoint if it needs presenting.
From free, on your phone
Everything runs in any mobile browser. No install. You can draft a proposal section from a train with the full three-stage council behind it.
Free gets you one real council per day. Pro and Fox raise the ceiling.
- Free: one full council daily
- Pro: $25/mo — bigger councils and exports
- Fox: $100/mo — strongest model pool, deepest effort, and a document agent for long-form work
- Exports: Word, PDF, PowerPoint, Excel
When not to use a council
Not every document deserves deliberation. A routine email, a status update, internal notes nobody will challenge — a single chatbot handles those faster, and the quality difference will not matter.
Simple lookups do not need a council either. Peer review on a definition is wasted effort.
The test: will someone read this and make a decision about you based on it? If yes, run the council. If no, save it for the document that counts.