host-panel

name	host-panel
description	Facilitate research-grounded panels in roundtable, Oxford, and Socratic formats. Use when exploring contested topics from multiple angles. NOT for Q&A, code review, or real human opinion simulation.
argument-hint	"topic" [format] [num-experts]
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"wyattowalsh","version":"1.0.0"}

Host Panel

Facilitate research-grounded deliberation across simulated intellectual positions. Surface tensions, source-grounded claims, and disagreement cruxes; never present the panel as evidence of real human group behavior.

Invocation: /host-panel "topic" [format] [num-experts]

Dispatch Table

$ARGUMENTS shape	Dispatch	Action
empty	empty-help-gallery	Show the gallery, defaults, supported formats, and ask for a topic.
quoted topic + optional format/count	parse-diagnose-ground	Parse arguments, run topic diagnostic, then research before personas.
unquoted or malformed topic	clarify-topic	Ask for a quoted topic; do not infer a panel from ambiguous fragments.
format omitted	auto-select-format	Select roundtable, oxford, or socratic using references/topic-diagnostic.md.
invalid format or count outside 2-6	argument-error	Explain supported formats/count range and ask for a corrected invocation.
loaded premise or preferred answer	premise-check	Challenge the framing before accepting it as the debate motion.
settled factual or false-balance topic	reframe-false-balance	Reframe toward open implementation, values, uncertainty, or boundary questions.
Q&A, code review, one-on-one chat, or real opinion simulation	redirect-out-of-scope	Decline the panel framing and redirect to the appropriate interaction style or skill.

Empty/Help Gallery

If $ARGUMENTS is empty, present this gallery and wait:

#	Domain	Topic	Format
1	Technology	"Should foundation model weights be open-sourced?"	oxford
2	Philosophy	"What obligations do current generations owe the far future?"	socratic
3	Policy	"How should cities redesign transit for remote-work patterns?"	roundtable
4	Science	"Is the replication crisis a crisis of method or incentives?"	roundtable

Defaults: roundtable, 4 experts. Expert range: 2-6. Prefer 4-5; 6 is harder to maintain.

Format-count notes:

• Oxford with 2 experts is direct proposition-vs-opposition.
• Oxford with 3 experts uses one swing panelist.
• Socratic with 2 experts becomes paired inquiry with phase-transition moderation.
• Roundtable with 2 experts becomes structured dialogue, not a faux crowd.

Progressive Disclosure

Load only what the invocation requires:

1. Always load references/topic-diagnostic.md, references/research-integrity.md, and references/debate-research.md before personas.
2. Load references/archetypes.md only after the topic gate identifies the needed traditions.
3. Load references/moderator-rules.md and references/formats.md immediately before running the panel.
4. Load references/synthesis.md before the final product.
5. Do not load every reference up front for weak, malformed, or out-of-scope topics.

Optional parser: run uv run python scripts/parse_args.py $ARGUMENTS when shell access is available. Use the JSON result for topic, format, and count; if scripts are unavailable, parse manually with the same public contract.

Classification Gate

Topic Classes

Class	Meaning	Default Action
settled-factual	Mostly closed empirical question	Reframe or decline false balance
open-value	Normative, policy, rights, incentives, or goals	Proceed
controversial-factual	Live empirical disagreement with credible sources on multiple sides	Proceed with source ledger
speculative	Future-facing or theory-building	Proceed with uncertainty labels
thin-evidence	Sparse or indirect literature	Proceed only with explicit gaps
decision-critical	User is making a practical choice	Proceed with decision implications

Gate Actions

Action	Use When
proceed	Topic is specific, contestable, and sourceable enough for a panel
reframe	Topic is too broad, loaded, asymmetric, or better posed another way
clarify	Topic cannot be parsed or has too little detail
decline-false-balance	Debate would stage denial of a settled factual matter

Pipeline

1. Parse. Preserve the public invocation contract. Reject invalid formats, invalid counts, and malformed topics before research.
2. Diagnose. Classify topic type, false-balance risk, evidence status, format fit, and whether the user's premise should be challenged.
3. Ground. Build a source ledger with 3-5 relevant sources when tools are available. If current sources are unavailable, label the panel as unverified training-knowledge synthesis.
4. Map perspectives. Discover traditions from the topic and sources before personas. Prefer methodology diversity over theatrical variety.
5. Run independent first positions. Each panelist states an initial position before seeing other panelists' claims. Subsequent rounds critique claims, not people.
6. Moderate against collapse. Test convergence, persuasive unsupported claims, majority pressure, and sycophantic acceptance of the user's framing.
7. Synthesize by trajectory. The final product maps factual claims, interpretive disagreements, cruxes, evidence gaps, and decision implications. It is not a vote.

Output Contract

Structure complete outputs with these sections:

• Topic Gate - topic class, format choice, false-balance decision, and any premise challenge.
• Research Status - verified/thin/unverified status and evidence limits.
• Source Ledger - stable source IDs, supported claims, viewpoints, independence, and confidence.
• Terrain Map - disciplines, traditions, live tensions, and unresolved uncertainty.
• Panelist Roster - methodology cards, not theatrical character sheets.
• Panel Phases - format-specific phases from references/formats.md.
• Final Synthesis - trajectory-aware synthesis from references/synthesis.md.
• Follow-up Options - 3-4 concrete next moves tied to this panel's cruxes.

For condensed panels, keep abbreviated framing, one sharp exchange, challenge highlights, and full final synthesis. Cut redundant opening positions and repeated back-and-forth.

Critical Rules

1. Research before personas. Always run topic analysis and source grounding before building the roster.
2. Never stage fake balance. Settled factual claims must be reframed or declined as debate motions.
3. Never claim the panel simulates real human group behavior, polling, consensus, or prediction.
4. Cite real works only. If a title, author, year, venue, or affiliation is not verified, stay at the tradition/framework level.
5. Show source status. Label source grounding as verified, thin, or unverified-training-knowledge.
6. Require independent first positions before cross-talk so later convergence can be inspected.
7. Treat rhetorical confidence as non-evidence. Persuasive claims need sources, logic, or explicit uncertainty.
8. Test convergence. Agreement can reflect model priors, sycophancy, majority pressure, or persuasive falsehood.
9. No straw men. Each position must be the strongest version of its tradition and must include its strongest self-objection.
10. Never skip final synthesis. The synthesis is the intellectual product and must separate facts, interpretations, cruxes, and uncertainty.

Reference File Index

File	Content	Read When
references/topic-diagnostic.md	Topic classification, false-balance gate, format selection, and reframe rules	Before personas for every non-empty invocation
references/research-integrity.md	Source ledger, citation integrity, confidence labels, and provenance rules	Before naming sources or works
references/debate-research.md	AI debate, role-play, sycophancy, and synthesis research mapped to host-panel rules	Before choosing panel mechanics
references/archetypes.md	Methodology-card construction and anti-clustering guidance	After topic gate identifies needed traditions
references/moderator-rules.md	Independent first positions, anti-conformity, turn-taking, and provocation rules	Before the first panel phase
references/formats.md	Roundtable, Oxford, and Socratic phase structures with stop and failure conditions	After format selection
references/synthesis.md	Trajectory-aware final synthesis requirements and follow-up options	Before final synthesis

Canonical Vocabulary

Canonical Term	Meaning
panel	A simulated deliberation across intellectual positions on a topic
expert / panelist	An AI-simulated domain specialist with a defined methodology and evidence standard
format	The discussion structure: roundtable, oxford, or socratic
source ledger	Stable list of sources, supported claims, viewpoints, independence, and confidence
topic gate	Pre-panel classification deciding proceed, reframe, clarify, or decline
terrain map	Pre-discussion map of disciplines, traditions, tensions, and uncertainty
tradition	Intellectual school, profession, or research program with methodological commitments
crux	A claim or assumption that would change the disagreement if resolved
convergence	Panelist agreement that must be tested for model-prior collapse or majority pressure
anti-conformity	Deliberate protection against consensus pressure and persuasive unsupported claims
final synthesis	Trajectory-aware product separating facts, interpretations, uncertainty, and implications

After the Panel

For follow-ups, briefly re-ground by reviewing the roster, source status, and central crux before speaking in character or extending the analysis.

If the user is making a practical decision, connect the final synthesis to the decision: weigh trade-offs, evidence gaps, and what would change the recommendation.