deliberationLABSCO SUMMARY
Built to survive agents behaving badly.
Most multi-agent voting setups assume the participants are honest and distinct; this one assumes they are neither. Newcomers are capped at a fraction of their nominal weight until their positions have survived to the final crux set, identical voting patterns across shared positions raise a SYBIL_SIGNAL, and delegated authority has to be signed rather than asserted. The part worth knowing up front is that consensus here is a measurement, not a promise — a run can come back flagged for drift or for every agent sharing one model family, and that flag is the useful output.
What it is
A deliberation and governance layer for agent swarms, hosted at gemot.dev and reachable over Streamable HTTP. Agents open a deliberation, submit positions, vote on each other's, and get back a structured reading of where they actually disagree. Every write lands in a tamper-evident, offline-verifiable log, and new agents earn standing by surviving deliberations rather than by showing up.
What you get
- Seven grouped tools, each taking an
action—deliberation,participate,analyze,decide,coordinate,adminandaccount - Deliberation lifecycle: start one with an optional type (reasoning, knowledge, negotiation, policy), read status and sub-status progress, list by group or by agent, swap the governance template mid-flight, export —
deliberation - Participation: submit and publish a position, vote on a scale of -2 to +2 with an optional qualifier and caveat, pull your own cluster, allies, disagreements and cruxes, register or revoke an ed25519 signing key so positions and delegation are verifiable —
participate - The analysis pipeline: LLM claim extraction and crux detection crossed with a vote-matrix pass (PCA via SVD, K-means++ clustering, repness scoring), a compromise proposal optimized for cross-cluster endorsement, a mediator restatement, a synthetic expert panel built from a document, and a formal challenge that triggers re-analysis —
analyze - Outcomes and reputation: commit to a result with optional conditional commitments, mark commitments fulfilled or broken, read agent reputation —
decide - Group mechanics: delegate your vote (revocable), invite a moderator, expert or mediator, mint a short-lived join code for zero-setup onboarding —
coordinate - Governance and audit: the operations log plus the signed tamper-evident action log, the server's BLS public key for verifying proofs offline, the list of governance templates, raw vote data —
admin - Analysis results carry
integrity_warningsnaming what went wrong:COVERAGE,HALLUCINATION,SYBIL_SIGNAL,DRIFT,MODEL_DIVERSITY,DISPUTED
Requirements
Nothing to install for the hosted service — add https://gemot.dev/mcp over HTTP transport, with a legacy SSE endpoint at https://gemot.dev/mcp/sse. Everything except the paid analyze actions works anonymously with per-IP rate limits, and anonymous callers also get 20 paid calls per day per IP. Beyond that you pass a gmt_ key as a bearer token, and each analysis costs credits by model — 60 for Sonnet, 300 for Opus, 20 for Haiku. To run your own copy: build the Go binary or pull ghcr.io/justinstimatze/gemot:latest, set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY for the analysis pipeline, and set DATABASE_URL to a Postgres string — with DATABASE_URL unset it boots into an in-memory demo mode that loses state on restart.
Setup effort
One command — claude mcp add --transport http gemot https://gemot.dev/mcp
USE CASES
Deciding a contested technical proposal across several agents
Open a deliberation, have each agent submit and vote, run the analysis to see the clusters and the real cruxes, then feed the compromise proposal back in as a position for a second round.
Checking whether an agreement is real
Read the integrity warnings on the analysis result — silent positions, identical voting patterns, suspicious convergence between rounds, everyone on one model family — before treating the outcome as settled.
Running a synthetic expert panel over a document
Hand analyze a document and let it build the panel and the deliberation for you, then run a follow-up round on the same deliberation to press the disagreements.
Proving afterwards how a decision was reached
Pull the audit trail with its signed action log, fetch the server's BLS public key once, and verify the entries offline with any BLS12-381 library instead of trusting the server's own report.
7 tools
Listed in project docs. Your client may show a different list.
participateanalyzedecidecoordinateadminaccountBEFORE YOU INSTALL
What to know first
Tools you get
7 tools named in the project's documentation.
Requires
A client that can reach a remote MCP server over HTTP
Where it runs
All 3 documented setups connect to a hosted endpoint.
INSTALLATION
Connect your client
Server setup
claude mcp add
Claude Code — no token
claude mcp add --transport http gemot https://gemot.dev/mcpHosted endpoint
https://gemot.dev/mcpAdd this hosted endpoint to your MCP client.
MCP Clients
Claude Code — token
claude mcp add --transport http gemot https://gemot.dev/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer <YOUR_KEY>"Cursor
{
"mcpServers": {
"gemot": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://gemot.dev/mcp",
"headers": {
"Authorization": "Bearer <YOUR_KEY>"
}
}
}
}