Run and Inspect the Cross-Vendor Workflow

Cross-vendor execution is an explicit operating mode. The user must request that mode and provide the full decision question in the same command or interaction. The council then routes the work through the multi-model service and returns a set of model responses plus a reviewed conclusion.

The invocation uses /LLM Council run the cross vendor mode, followed by the strategic decision, the current state, and the target outcome.

During execution, the interface indicates that a cross-vendor council is running through the routing service. When the run completes, the user can see which models responded and which model performed reviewer work.

The workflow therefore has two observable layers:

• Model contributions from several vendors.
• Reviewer or final-decision output that synthesizes those contributions.

The ability to inspect individual responses is essential when different models support different actions. In the business example, the cross-vendor result did not simply repeat the default council's recommendation. It leaned toward a different strategic path.

Inspection allows the user to see that the difference is real and to understand which model outputs contributed to it. The council is not valuable only because it produces a longer answer. It is valuable because it exposes several distinct analyses and then forces a synthesis.

A complete cross-vendor request can be organized as follows:

1. Invoke the LLM Council skill.
2. Explicitly request cross-vendor mode.
3. State the decision between the low-ticket and high-ticket paths.
4. Describe the existing $8,000 monthly recurring revenue base.
5. Explain that the low-ticket path depends on more content and traffic.
6. Identify the target of reaching $50,000 per month as quickly as possible.
7. Ask the council to recommend where focus should be placed.

After the run, open the individual responses. Confirm that several model families participated and that a reviewer stage was used. Then compare the final conclusion with the earlier single-model result rather than assuming both modes will agree.

Every cross-vendor run consumes paid API usage. It also produces more responses to inspect. The workflow is most useful when the decision is important enough to justify that additional deliberation.

Different council modes may disagree. When they do, examine the reasoning traces and how the final answer was constructed rather than assuming that both modes should reach the same conclusion.

Invoke cross-vendor mode explicitly, provide a complete decision brief, verify that multiple models and a reviewer participated, and inspect the model-level reasoning when the final recommendation differs from the default council.