multi-perspective-scan

name	multi-perspective-scan
description	Use this skill when the user wants a fast multi-angle read of a topic without the full STORM pipeline — phrases like "multi-perspective scan", "give me 5 perspectives on <topic>", "analyze <topic> from multiple angles", "what would different experts say about <topic>", "perspective scan", "5 expert views", "steelman the different takes on <topic>", or "what are the different viewpoints on <topic>". Fans out the five STORM persona agents (practitioner, skeptic, economist, historian, academic) in parallel and presents their views. This is STORM Phase 1 standalone — the reusable heart of the method.
version	1.0.0
user-invocable	true

Multi-Perspective Scan — The Five Lenses, Standalone

When you ask one question, you get the majority view — one framing, the surface. The breakthrough behind Stanford's STORM is simple: ask the same topic from five independent expert lenses and you catch the blind spots a single pass never sees. This skill runs just that fan-out — fast, when you don't need the full contradiction map / synthesis / peer-review pipeline (for that, use storm-research).

The five lenses, and what each uniquely catches:

Lens	Sees what others miss
Practitioner	The theory–practice gap; what actually works in the field
Skeptic	Overclaims, hidden flaws, the buried failure cases
Economist	Who profits, who pays, the misaligned incentives
Historian	The pattern that repeated before; where we are in the cycle
Academic	What the evidence actually shows, including conflicting findings

Workflow

Step 0 — Scope

1. Get the topic. If vague or sprawling, ask one sharpening question. A tight topic yields sharper perspectives.
2. Derive a slug and set the workspace .storm/{slug}/. Create it: mkdir -p .storm/{slug}.
3. Tune the panel if a swap clearly helps (e.g. add a Clinician / Regulator / End User via a Task call using the same persona output contract). Default to the standard five.

Step 1 — Fan Out (parallel)

Launch all five persona agents in a single message with five Task calls. Each gets the topic, the workspace path, and its output file. Per-agent prompt:

"Topic: {topic}. Workspace: .storm/{slug}/. Write your analysis to .storm/{slug}/{persona}.md per your output contract. Gather real evidence with WebSearch/WebFetch and cite it."

Targets: practitioner.md, skeptic.md, economist.md, historian.md, academic.md. Each agent writes its file and returns a one-line confirmation. If one fails, note it and continue with the rest.

Step 2 — Present the Five Views

Read the five files and present a compact digest — the bottom line and 2–3 sharpest insights per lens, plus where you already see them diverging:

Multi-Perspective Scan — {topic}
=================================
Workspace: .storm/{slug}/

🛠  Practitioner — {bottom line}
    • {top insight}  • {top insight}
🔍  Skeptic — {bottom line}
    • {top flaw [FATAL/CAVEAT]}  • {…}
💰  Economist — {bottom line}
    • {top incentive}  • {…}
📜  Historian — {bottom line}
    • {top parallel}  • {…}
🎓  Academic — {bottom line}
    • {top finding [STRONG/MIXED/…]}  • {…}

Early signal: {one line on the most interesting disagreement you already notice}

Full analyses: .storm/{slug}/{persona}.md

Step 3 — Offer the Next Step

Suggest the natural follow-ups:

• Map where they disagree → run contradiction-map on this workspace
• Go all the way to a briefing → run storm-research (adds synthesis + peer review)
• Drill into one lens → ask that persona a follow-up

Notes

• This is intentionally lighter than storm-research: five views, no synthesis. Use it to scan fast, then escalate only if the topic warrants the full pipeline.
• The workspace it produces is directly consumable by contradiction-map and storm-research (Phases 2–4), so a scan is never wasted work.