panel

name	panel
description	Multi-provider deliberation panel for COMPLEX, multi-view questions — architecture, strategy, market research, and codebase sweeps. Runs a 4-stage deliberation across the provider fleet (diverge → contrarian red-team → adversarial verify → cited synthesis), the same multi-perspective rigour the plan-gate already applies to plan reviews, generalised to arbitrary questions. Use when one model's answer isn't enough and you want convergence THROUGH disagreement + verification, not a single opinion.
allowed-tools	["Read","Grep","Glob","Bash"]

/panel — multi-provider deliberation

For hard questions where you want several strong models to genuinely deliberate, not just answer in parallel. Each stage builds on the last, so the panel converges through disagreement and verification instead of averaging opinions.

When to use

• architecture — a feature/system design where the tradeoffs are non-obvious.
• strategy — a business/product call that rests on assumptions worth stress-testing.
• research — market/competitive questions where claims need refuting.
• sweep — a codebase audit (security / correctness / dead-code / refactor).

Reach for it when a single model's answer would be a guess, and you'd otherwise open five terminals yourself.

How it works (4 stages)

1. Diverge — every fleet provider (codex / kimi / claude / glm-5.2 / deepseek-harness) analyses the SAME question through a DIFFERENT mode-specific lens.
2. Contrarian — one designated seat red-teams the emerging consensus: what did everyone miss, which "this is fine" is wrong.
3. Verify — the top claims are adversarially checked (against the CODE for sweeps — real file:line; against SOURCES for research — try to refute).
4. Synthesis — one cited report: consensus + surviving dissent + verified/refuted claims, ranked and deduped.

Run it

python3 scripts/panel.py <mode> "<question>" [--context-file FILE] [--timeout 900] [--out FILE]

Examples:

# architecture decision, grounded on a design doc
python3 scripts/panel.py architecture "Should the judge run per-receipt or batched?" --context-file docs/adr-028.md

# code sweep grounded on a diff or file list
git diff origin/main > /tmp/d.diff
python3 scripts/panel.py sweep "Review this change for security + correctness" --context-file /tmp/d.diff

# market research
python3 scripts/panel.py research "Is there an underserved MKB market for local-LLM invoice processing?"

The cited report lands in unified_reports/panel-<mode>-<id>.md and prints to stdout.

Notes

• Governed lane: each panelist dispatches through the review lane and emits a receipt. Respects the provider constraints (kimi-via-cli-only, glm via OpenRouter/harness, deepseek-harness with its own key + hardening, no-anthropic-sdk) — the dispatcher routes each provider correctly.
• A dead/absent provider (e.g. deepseek without its key) degrades the panel gracefully; it never blocks the run.
• The panel is the fabric's general multi-view tool. It complements the plan-gate panel (which is scoped to plan reviews) and the t0-orchestrator skill (which owns orchestration decisions). Implementation: scripts/lib/deliberation_panel.py.