| name | panel |
| description | Convene a panel of reviewers to analyze a draft from multiple perspectives, then synthesize their feedback into consensus findings, productive tensions, and prioritized recommendations. |
| user_invocable | true |
Panel Review
Convene multiple reviewer agents to analyze a piece, then synthesize their perspectives into a unified analysis that surfaces consensus, tensions, and priorities.
When to Use
- Before publishing something high-stakes
- When you want multiple perspectives without running reviewers manually
- When you suspect different aspects need different kinds of attention
- When you're too close to the work to know what feedback you need
The Flow
1. Load Context
Read the draft and its .status.yaml to understand:
- piece_type — essay, argument, explainer, narrative, etc.
- audience — general, specialist, insider
- stage — early draft, revision, near-final
- goals — if stated
This informs panel selection and later synthesis.
2. Propose Panel
Based on piece context, propose 4-6 reviewers.
Selection heuristics:
| Signal | Suggests Including |
|---|
| Personal/reflective content | sedaris, mom |
| Argumentative content | asshole, vonnegut |
| Technical or jargon-heavy | mom, hemingway |
| Narrative structure | vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin |
| Feels slow or wandering | sorkin |
| Feels bloated | hemingway |
| High-stakes / pre-publish | asshole, hemingway |
| General audience | mom |
| Early stage | vonnegut (fundamentals) |
| Late stage | hemingway, asshole (polish, stress-test) |
Check TASTE.md for:
- Preferred reviewers
- Reviewers to exclude
- Past patterns
Present the proposal:
## Proposed Panel
**Draft:** [title or slug]
**Context:** [piece_type] for [audience], currently at [stage]
Based on this context, I recommend:
| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **[name]** | [One-line rationale tied to piece context] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
**Not including:**
- **[name]** — [Why not relevant for this piece]
- **[name]** — [Why not]
Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
Wait for user confirmation or modification.
3. Run Reviewers in Parallel
Once confirmed:
- Spawn all selected reviewer agents in parallel using the Task tool
- Use subagent_type matching the reviewer (e.g., "compound-writing:review:asshole-reviewer")
- Each receives the full draft
- Each produces their standard prose output
- Collect all outputs
Example spawning pattern:
[Spawn in parallel:]
- Task: asshole-reviewer with draft
- Task: mom-reviewer with draft
- Task: hemingway-reviewer with draft
- Task: sorkin-reviewer with draft
4. Run Synthesizer
Spawn panel-synthesizer agent with:
- The draft
- Draft context from .status.yaml
- All reviewer outputs (full prose)
Synthesizer prompt should include:
## Draft
[full draft text]
## Context
piece_type: [from .status.yaml]
audience: [from .status.yaml]
stage: [from .status.yaml]
goals: [from .status.yaml if present]
## Reviewer Outputs
### asshole-reviewer
[full output]
### mom-reviewer
[full output]
### hemingway-reviewer
[full output]
[etc.]
5. Return Synthesis
Present the synthesizer's output to the user.
Panel Size
- Minimum: 3 reviewers (fewer than this, just run them individually)
- Recommended: 4-5 reviewers (good coverage without redundancy)
- Maximum: 7 reviewers (all of them—full stress test)
Available Reviewers
| Reviewer | Subagent Type | Focus |
|---|
| asshole | compound-writing:review:asshole-reviewer | Logical rigor, unsupported claims |
| mom | compound-writing:review:mom-reviewer | Accessibility, jargon, general reader |
| hemingway | compound-writing:review:hemingway-reviewer | Economy, cutting, word-level |
| sedaris | compound-writing:review:sedaris-reviewer | Specificity, humor, voice |
| sorkin | compound-writing:review:sorkin-reviewer | Pacing, momentum, forward motion |
| vonnegut | compound-writing:review:vonnegut-reviewer | Story fundamentals, structure |
| hitchcock | compound-writing:review:hitchcock-reviewer | Tension, suspense, stakes |
Default Panels by Piece Type
If .status.yaml has piece_type, use as starting point:
| piece_type | Default Panel |
|---|
essay / personal | mom, sedaris, vonnegut, sorkin |
argument / opinion | asshole, vonnegut, hemingway, mom |
explainer / technical | mom, hemingway, sorkin |
narrative / story | vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin, sedaris |
newsletter | mom, sorkin, hemingway |
Always adjust based on specific signals in the draft.
Example Session
User: /panel
Agent: I'll convene a panel to review your draft. Let me read it and check the status.
[Reads draft]
[Reads .status.yaml: piece_type: essay, audience: general, stage: revision,
goals: "make it land emotionally without being sappy"]
## Proposed Panel
**Draft:** father-and-the-sea
**Context:** essay for general audience, revision stage
Based on the context—personal essay aiming for emotional impact without
sentimentality—I recommend:
| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **mom** | General audience check. Will flag where you lose non-insiders. |
| **sedaris** | Personal material that might benefit from more specificity or humor. |
| **sorkin** | Revision stage—check if pacing is tight. |
| **asshole** | The emotional claims need to be earned, not asserted. |
**Not including:**
- **hemingway** — The prose reads clean; economy isn't the issue here
- **hitchcock** — Not a tension-driven piece
- **vonnegut** — Structure is solid; this needs polish not fundamentals
Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
User: Add hemingway actually, I think it might be overwritten
Agent: Adding hemingway. Running the panel now.
[Spawns 5 reviewer agents in parallel]
[Collects outputs]
[Spawns panel-synthesizer with draft + context + all outputs]
## Panel Synthesis
**Panel:** asshole, hemingway, mom, sedaris, sorkin
**Piece context:** essay for general audience, revision stage, goal: emotional
impact without sappiness
---
### Consensus Findings
| Issue | Flagged By | Recommendation |
|-------|------------|----------------|
| Opening two paragraphs are slow | sorkin, hemingway, asshole | Cut or restructure—start closer to the boat |
| "He taught me everything" is unearned | asshole, sedaris | Show what he taught, don't declare it |
| Section 3 gets abstract | mom, sorkin | Ground it in a specific moment |
---
### Productive Tensions
**Tension: The fishing gear paragraph**
> "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s, a reel
> that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught anything but
> his own thumb."
| Cut it | Keep it |
|--------|---------|
| **hemingway:** 47 words that could be 15. "His tackle box held decades of failure" does the job. | **sedaris:** This is the most alive moment in the piece. The specific details are doing real work. |
**What's at stake:** The piece aims for emotional impact without sappiness.
Specific, wry details (sedaris) might be the path there. But if they slow
momentum, they work against the goal.
---
### Unique Insights
- **sedaris:** "There's a joke hiding in the part about him never admitting he
was wrong. You're circling it but won't commit."
- **asshole:** "Your ending asks the reader to feel something you haven't set
up. The 'I finally understood' move is unearned."
---
### Recommended Priorities
1. **Restructure the opening** — Three reviewers flagged this. Start on the
boat, not before it.
2. **Earn the ending** — The emotional payoff needs setup. Show what you
finally understood through a scene, not a declaration.
3. **Decide on the tackle box** — Genuine tension. Your call based on what
you're optimizing for.
---
### The Hard Question
> What specifically did you learn from him that you couldn't have learned from
> anyone else? Multiple reviewers noted you assert the relationship's importance
> without showing what made it irreplaceable.
Error Handling
If a reviewer fails to spawn:
- Note which reviewer is missing
- Proceed with available outputs
- Mention the gap in synthesis
If draft has no .status.yaml:
- Infer what you can from the draft itself
- Note that context is limited
- Make reasonable assumptions about piece type
If user provides no draft:
- Ask for the draft path or slug to load
- Or ask them to paste the draft
Future: Debate Mode
The synthesizer identifies tensions but doesn't resolve them. A future evolution:
- Synthesizer flags tensions
- Tensions sent back to involved reviewers: "Hemingway, sedaris said X. Respond?"
- Reviewers can concede, hold, or propose compromise
- Multiple rounds until resolution or acknowledged stalemate
For now, tensions surface for the writer to resolve.
Lessons
[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]
