name: expert-panel-deliberation description: > Multi-expert evaluation pattern for structured analysis and decision-making. PROACTIVELY activate for: (1) Analyze with expert perspectives, (2) Get multiple viewpoints on a topic, (3) Evaluate options with diverse expertise, (4) Build consensus from different angles, (5) Structured deliberation on complex topics.
Triggers: "analyze with expert panel", "get expert perspectives", "what would experts say", "evaluate from different angles", "run expert deliberation", "multi-perspective analysis"
Expert Panel Deliberation
Structured multi-expert evaluation, deliberation, and consensus building.
Purpose
Provide consistent, high-quality multi-perspective analysis by:
- Instantiating domain-appropriate expert panels
- Executing structured deliberation protocols
- Resolving conflicts between viewpoints
- Building weighted consensus
- Documenting reasoning and dissent
When to Use
Ideal for:
- Decisions requiring multiple perspectives
- Evaluating options with tradeoffs
- Complex topics with no single right answer
- Building confidence through diverse viewpoints
Avoid when:
- Simple factual questions
- Time-critical decisions needing speed
- Single-domain technical questions
Checkpoints
This skill uses interactive checkpoints (see references/checkpoints.yaml) to resolve ambiguity:
- domain_context — When domain not specified
- output_format_selection — When output format not specified
- deliberation_depth_selection — When depth could vary based on stakes
- panel_composition — When archetype selection is ambiguous
- panel_size_adjustment — When specified size conflicts with recommended
- conflict_resolution_approach — When unresolved conflicts need user input
- weighting_approach — When consensus weighting is ambiguous
- dissent_documentation — When minority view significance is unclear
Workflow
Step 1: Define Panel Requirements
Determine what evaluation is needed:
- Subject: What is being evaluated?
- Goal: What should the evaluation determine?
- Panel size: 3-8 experts (default: 5)
- Output format: findings | scores | ranking | recommendation
CHECKPOINT: domain_context
- If domain not specified and not inferable from subject: AskUserQuestion
- Options: Architecture, Product, Security, Operations, Business, Custom
- Example: "What domain is this evaluation for?"
CHECKPOINT: output_format_selection
- If output format not specified: AskUserQuestion
- Options: Findings, Scores, Ranking, Recommendation
- Example: "What output format would be most useful?"
CHECKPOINT: deliberation_depth_selection
- If stakes unclear and depth not specified: AskUserQuestion
- Options: Quick, Standard, Deep
- Example: "How thorough should the deliberation be?"
Step 2: Assemble Expert Panel
Select from archetypes based on domain:
| Archetype | Focus | Include When |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Authority | Architecture, implementation | Technical subjects |
| Quality Guardian | Standards, testing | Quality assessment |
| User Advocate | Experience, usability | User-facing topics |
| Risk Specialist | Failures, compliance | Risk assessment |
| Efficiency Expert | Cost, automation | Resource decisions |
| Domain Specialist | Best practices | Domain-specific topics |
| Challenger | Questioning assumptions | Always (at least 1) |
Panel composition rules:
- Minimum 3 experts for meaningful deliberation
- Maximum 8 experts (diminishing returns beyond)
- Always include at least one challenger perspective
- Balance technical and business viewpoints
CHECKPOINT: panel_composition
- If subject matches multiple domains or custom panel needed: AskUserQuestion
- Options: Architecture panel, Product panel, Security panel, Custom selection
- Example: "Which expert panel composition fits best?"
CHECKPOINT: panel_size_adjustment
- If user-specified size differs significantly from recommended: AskUserQuestion
- Example: "You specified 3 experts, but this topic typically benefits from 5. Which size?"
Step 3: Execute Individual Evaluation
For each expert:
- Adopt perspective — Review role, expertise, concerns
- Evaluate subject — Answer from expert's viewpoint
- Score (if applicable) — Rate relevant dimensions
- Document — Key findings, concerns, recommendations
Step 4: Execute Deliberation
Round 1: Finding Presentation
- Each expert presents top findings
- No debate yet; just surface perspectives
Round 2: Cross-Examination
- Experts question each other's findings
- Surface disagreements and gaps
Round 3: Conflict Resolution
- Address disagreements systematically
- Document resolved vs. unresolved conflicts
Round 4: Consensus Building
- Identify areas of agreement
- Weight by expert influence
- Synthesize combined view
CHECKPOINT: conflict_resolution_approach
- If significant conflicts remain unresolved: AskUserQuestion
- Options: Weight by domain, Weight by evidence, Document both, Escalate to user
- Example: "Technical Authority and User Advocate disagree. How should we resolve?"
CHECKPOINT: weighting_approach
- If weighting algorithm not specified and experts have unequal relevance: AskUserQuestion
- Options: Equal weight, Domain relevance, Confidence-adjusted, Evidence-based
- Example: "How should expert perspectives be weighted?"
Step 5: Generate Output
Format based on requested output type.
CHECKPOINT: dissent_documentation
- If minority views exist and significance unclear: AskUserQuestion
- Options: Document prominently, Document briefly, Omit
- Example: "Risk Specialist disagrees with consensus. How should we document this?"
Output Format
## Expert Panel Analysis: [Subject]
### Panel Composition
- **[Expert 1 Role]:** [brief expertise]
- **[Expert 2 Role]:** [brief expertise]
...
### Key Findings
**Consensus Views:**
1. [Finding agreed by most/all experts] (Confidence: HIGH/MED/LOW)
2. [Finding agreed by most/all experts] (Confidence: HIGH/MED/LOW)
**Divergent Views:**
- [Expert] believes [X] while [Expert] believes [Y]
- Resolution: [how addressed or "unresolved"]
### Scores (if applicable)
| Dimension | Score | Confidence |
|-----------|-------|------------|
| [dim] | [X/10] | [H/M/L] |
### Recommendations
1. [Primary recommendation]
2. [Secondary recommendation]
### Dissent Record
[Any unresolved disagreements and minority views]
Quality Gates
- All requested experts contributed
- Each expert answered from their perspective
- Conflicts identified and addressed
- Weights properly applied
- Consensus clearly stated
- Dissent documented if present
- Confidence levels assigned
- All applicable checkpoints evaluated (ambiguity resolved via AskUserQuestion)
Parameters
| Parameter | Default | Options |
|---|---|---|
panel_size | 5 | 3-8 |
deliberation_depth | standard | quick, standard, deep |
output_format | findings | findings, scores, ranking, recommendation |
include_challenger | true | true, false |
Examples
Example 1: Architecture Decision User: Analyze our microservices vs monolith decision with an expert panel Panel: Technical Authority, Quality Guardian, Risk Specialist, Efficiency Expert, Challenger [Deliberation proceeds with each expert evaluating from their perspective]
Example 2: Feature Prioritization User: Get expert perspectives on which features to build next quarter Panel: User Advocate, Domain Specialist, Technical Authority, Efficiency Expert, Challenger [Deliberation with scoring output]