AI Consensus runs your prompt through Claude, GPT and Gemini. They work it independently, then critique each other and reach consensus — handing you a single, consolidated answer, the best of the three, not three to sift through. When it's a decision, you also get the strongest case against it. One pressure‑tested answer — not one confident voice with its own blind spots.
Two free text-only runs. No credit card. Expires after 14 days.
Built for developers, founders and consultants who can't afford a confident wrong answer.
Question. Should we move from custom internal reporting to a paid BI tool this quarter?
Recommendation. Move to a paid BI tool this quarter — but only for the reporting layer. Keep sensitive operational logic in the existing system until dependencies are mapped.
🛡 Dissent Memo — the strongest argument against
Migration risk. If data cleanup is underestimated, the BI tool becomes an expensive second reporting system rather than a replacement. Only worth it if ownership, source‑of‑truth rules and a cutoff date are agreed before you start.
What only you can judge. Whether leadership will enforce one source of truth, and whether the pain is urgent enough to act this quarter.
A single AI gives you one answer — and often hides everything it's unsure about. It sounds just as confident when it's wrong as when it's right. When a decision costs real money, time or reputation, that confident‑but‑wrong answer can become one of the most expensive things in your business.
You'd never make a big call on a single opinion. Don't make it on a single AI.
AI Consensus is built to expose blind spots before they become expensive mistakes.
Pose a question, a decision or a build task in plain language — and choose how much scrutiny it needs: Quick, Balanced or Deep. On paid runs, attach PDFs, images, Word, text, markdown or CSV. (Free trial runs are text-only.)
Claude, GPT and Gemini each work it alone. That independence is what makes the cross-check real — three different architectures, three different blind spots, not three versions of one answer.
The heart of it. The models pressure-test each other's reasoning and are pushed not to cave just to agree. Decisions are debated across rounds to a real impasse; builds get a full critique pass.
A decision comes back as a clear recommendation, the single strongest argument against it, where the models agreed and didn't, the key risks, and what only you can judge. A build comes back as the finished thing — merged from the best of all three.
Most tools hide uncertainty behind one smooth answer. We surface it. The strongest dissent is shown, not buried — and every view is attributed by name, so you see exactly which of Claude, GPT or Gemini said what. That's what helps catch weak reasoning, missing context and overconfident assumptions before you act.
You still make the final call — but you make it with the argument for, the argument against, and the blind spots in view. And if one model is temporarily unavailable, your run finishes on the other two and tells you so clearly.
“The most useful answer isn't always the smoothest one. It's the one that survives scrutiny.”
Get a clear recommendation plus the single strongest argument against it, where the models agreed and disagreed, the key risks, and what only you can judge. The decision stays yours — you just make it better informed.
Best for: strategy calls, hiring, product trade-offs, vendor choices, pricing changes, risk reviews, important emails.
Start a decision runHand over a build task and get the finished thing back — merged from the best of all three models, after a full critique pass. Cleaner reasoning and fewer blind spots in what you ship.
Best for: landing pages, proposals, technical plans, research summaries, policies, client deliverables, code reviews.
Start a build runNot one confident answer you have to take on faith — a pressure-tested one, fully unpacked.
The more you tell it, the better it works — here's a real example, the answer one AI gives, and what three AIs caught.
Illustrative example, shortened for clarity — real consensus runs take a few minutes. Click a step to jump; Play/Pause to control it.
Not a wall of text. One answer, fully unpacked into a structure you can actually act on.
Don't run a storewide 20% sale — most of your buyers would pay full price. Lift flat sales with a margin-safe offer instead: first-time buyers, a bundle, or a subscription.
If a capped first-timer discount genuinely wins new repeat customers, it could still pay off — worth testing on a small group first.
Flat sales are a real problem worth acting on; the margin is thin at R30/bag; and whatever you do shouldn't train loyal customers to wait for discounts.
Your true cost per bag (is R70 fully loaded?) and your real repeat-vs-new customer split — both change the maths, so confirm them before deciding.
A first-time-buyer-only offer, a bundle that lifts average order value, or a small subscription — each protects margin in a different way.
How much short-term volume you'd trade for long-term margin, and whether you can absorb a slow month while you test a smaller offer.
A: re-activate dormant buyers. B: protect the R30 margin. C: avoid training repeat customers to wait — the long-term cost of broad discounts.
Margin erosion, discount-trained customers, attracting bargain-hunters, cannibalising full-price sales, and a sale that's hard to walk back.
Although simplified for illustration, this is how real answers are structured — click any section above to expand it.
Not a tool you reach for — a standing review layer in your development loop. One line in your CLAUDE.md and your coding agent routes every decision of consequence — architecture, migrations, refactors, risk reviews — through Claude, GPT and Gemini, and weighs the strongest dissent before acting. You build inside your agent; the panel reviews as you go.
POST /consensus/runs
question: "Should we split this
service before launch?"
mode: "decide"
level: "balanced"
returns:
recommendation
dissent_memo
model_agreement
risks
human_callShown in USD; billed in South African Rand (R499/mo · R4,990/yr), subject to the exchange rate each month/year.
2 runs · free
Try the workflow before a paid run.
$4 / run
Occasional high-stakes calls — we supply the models.
$31 / mo
or $308 / year · bring your own keys
Choose your intelligence level — Quick, Balanced or Deep — to match the stakes. Deep is available on Unlimited. AI Consensus makes AI output more reliable, not infallible — a human always makes the final call.
Four things you can count on, by design — whatever you ask.
Our “structured disagreement” process makes the three models actually interact with each other — challenge, defend and refine — often producing a consensus answer no single model would arrive at alone: fewer errors, more creativity.
Claude, GPT and Gemini each answer on their own — three different blind spots, not one.
You always get the call and the strongest case against it — never one unchallenged answer.
Decision support that surfaces the trade-offs — not an autopilot that decides for you.
If one model is temporarily down, your run finishes on the other two and tells you so.
AI Consensus makes AI output more reliable, not infallible. It does not replace human judgement and is not legal, medical or financial advice.
No. AI Consensus uses three different frontier systems — Claude, GPT and Gemini — with different strengths and failure modes. They work independently first, then critique each other. That independence is what helps catch blind spots a single model would miss.
They're built to disagree, and to change position only when genuinely persuaded — not to be polite. If real disagreement remains, you see it. The strongest dissent is always shown — attributed by name to the model that holds it.
Usually a few minutes. It's real work — independent answers plus multiple critique rounds — so it's slower than a quick chatbot, and far more useful for serious calls.
Quick is for faster checks. Balanced suits most important decisions and deliverables. Deep gives the models more room for scrutiny and critique. Deep is available on Unlimited.
The run finishes on the other two models and tells you which one was unavailable. You still get a genuine cross-check, with the limitation shown.
Paid runs support PDFs, images, Word, text, markdown and CSV. Free trial runs are text-only.
Two free text-only runs, no credit card. Free trial runs expire after 14 days.
Yes. Unlimited lets you bring your own Anthropic, OpenAI and Google keys for unlimited runs at a flat monthly or annual fee.
For trivial edits and quick lookups. Save it for the calls where being confidently wrong would cost you.
Never. You get a recommendation plus the strongest case against it, the key risks and what still needs human judgement. A human always makes the final call.
No. It makes AI output more reliable by reducing the single-model blind spot, but it's not infallible. Treat it as strong decision support, not an automatic final answer.