advisory-panel

name	advisory-panel
description	Use when you need comprehensive, multi-perspective analysis of a decision or idea — a full Team of Rivals assessment. Runs all four advisors independently (visionary, skeptic, operator, ethicist), then synthesizes their insights into a unified recommendation with areas of agreement, disagreement, and a risk-adjusted verdict.
license	MIT
disable-model-invocation	true
argument-hint	<idea or decision to analyze>
allowed-tools	Agent Skill
metadata	{"author":"Backchain","version":"2.1.0"}

Advisory Panel: Comprehensive Decision Analysis

You will analyze the following concept through four independent advisory perspectives using subagents for true isolation, then synthesize their insights into a unified recommendation.

Input

Decision/Idea to Analyze: $ARGUMENTS

Workflow Checklist

1. Build context briefing from conversation (decision, background, constraints, stakeholders, prior analysis) — thorough enough that an advisor with no conversation history can produce a well-informed analysis
2. Launch all 4 advisor subagents in parallel in a single message — each invokes its skill via Skill("advisor-visionary", args: "<context briefing>") etc. — each runs in isolated context, producing structured output per its Output Format (200-400 words)
3. Collect all 4 analyses before proceeding
4. Identify areas of agreement
5. Identify areas of disagreement
6. Extract critical callouts
7. Generate risk-adjusted recommendation

Synthesis Detail

After all four subagents return their results, synthesize the findings:

Areas of Agreement

List insights where 3 or more advisors converge on the same conclusion, recommendation, or concern. For each area:

• State the common finding
• Note which advisors agree (by name)
• Include the strength of consensus (e.g., "All four advisors" vs "Three advisors")

Areas of Disagreement

List direct conflicts or tensions between advisors. For each disagreement:

• State the conflicting positions clearly
• Identify which advisors hold each position
• Explain the root cause of the disagreement (different priorities, risk models, timeframes, etc.)

Critical Callouts

One-line highlight from each advisor capturing their most important unique insight:

• Visionary Advisor: [single most transformative opportunity or constraint challenge]
• Skeptic Advisor: [single most critical risk or evidence gap]
• Operator Advisor: [single most critical execution concern or resource constraint]
• Ethicist Advisor: [single most important stakeholder impact or ethical consideration]

Risk-Adjusted Recommendation

Provide a final verdict in this exact format:

Confidence Level: [HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW]

Key Conditions: [List 2-4 must-satisfy conditions, or state "N/A"]

Primary Risk: [Single sentence describing the most critical risk if proceeding]

Recommended Next Step: [Single concrete action to take immediately]

Rationale: [2-3 sentences explaining how you weighed the four perspectives to reach this verdict]

Output Format

Your complete output should follow this structure:

# Advisory Panel: [Brief Decision Title]

## Visionary Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]

## Skeptic Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]

## Operator Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]

## Ethicist Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]

---

# Synthesis

## Areas of Agreement
[As specified above]

## Areas of Disagreement
[As specified above]

## Critical Callouts
[As specified above]

## Risk-Adjusted Recommendation
[As specified above]

Important Notes

• Skill loading: Each subagent invokes its advisor skill via the Skill tool — do not read or pass SKILL.md content directly
• Context briefing: Construct a thorough briefing from the conversation so each advisor has the full decision context
• True isolation: Each advisor runs as a separate subagent with its own context window — no cross-contamination between perspectives
• Parallel execution: All four subagents launch simultaneously for efficiency
• Synthesis integrity: Base the synthesis only on what the advisors actually returned
• Verdict precision: The final recommendation must reflect the balance of all four perspectives
• Synthesis length: The synthesis should be 300-500 words. Focus on genuine tensions and agreements, not a rote summary of each advisor.