Panel Discussion Skill

Generate 3-7 diverse expert personas, facilitate structured debate, and synthesize actionable recommendations.

Arguments

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

• size:N → panel size (3-7, default: auto)
• depth:X → quick (1 round), standard (2-3), deep (4+)
• style:X → collaborative, adversarial, academic
• Remaining text → topic

Flow

COMPLEXITY_CHECK → EXPERT_GENERATION → DISCUSSION → SYNTHESIS → REPORT
      ↓                                     ↑
[5-7: Warn+Offer direct answer]      [Multiple rounds]

Complexity Check

Expert Generation

Required archetypes (every panel):

1. Contrarian – challenges consensus, offers alternatives
2. Synthesizer – connects perspectives, finds common ground
3. Specialist – deep domain expertise, grounds discussion

Additional: Optimist, Skeptic, Pragmatist, Theorist

Panel size by breadth:

• Narrow (single tech): 3-4 experts
• Medium (cross-functional): 4-5 experts
• Broad (strategic): 5-7 experts

Diversity score ≥60 required:

• All 3 required archetypes: +20
• No archetype >30%: +10
• 4+ archetypes: +10
• 2+ domains: +15
• Optimist + Skeptic mix: +15
• User/external perspective: +15

Discussion Phases

Phase 1: Opening (Thesis)

🎤 Expert (Role): "[Initial position, 3-5 sentences]"

Phase 2: Cross-Examination (Antithesis)

Experts challenge and build. Patterns: Question→Response, Claim→Counter-claim, Challenge→Defense.

Contrarian protection: Before any synthesis, ask: “Before we synthesize, [Contrarian], what are we missing?”

Phase 3: Synthesis

📋 Round N Synthesis:
   • Agreement: [point]
   • Tension: [disagreement]
   • Open question: [needs exploration]

Convergence: End early if all agree or cycling. Extend if major tension unexplored.

Output Formats

Panel Header

╭─ Panel Discussion: [Topic] ────────────────────────────────╮
│ Experts: [Name] ([Role]), [Name] ([Role]), [Name] ([Role]) │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

User Menu

╭───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ [1] Continue  [2] Follow-up  [3] Redirect  [4] Conclude   │
╰───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

Final Report

╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║                    PANEL CONCLUSIONS                       ║
╚═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

## Executive Summary
[1-2 sentences]

## Consensus Points
1. **[Point]**: [Details]

## Key Trade-offs
- Trade-off: [Description]
- Recommendation: [Action]
- Dissent: [If any]

## Actionable Recommendations
### Immediate (Week 1)
### Short-term (Month 1)

## Dissenting Views
### [Expert]: "[Direct quote]"

## Open Questions

Synthesis Rules

Labels: UNANIMOUS | STRONG | MAJORITY | CONTESTED | CONTEXT-DEPENDENT

Weight by confidence × domain relevance:

• High + Core: 1.0
• Medium + Adjacent: 0.49
• Low + Outside: 0.16

Never say: “Both make valid points” or “It depends” without specifying factors.

User Commands