メニュー
Dynamically plan a multi-agent discussion, review, or research workflow with role selection, model assignment, round control, and recovery-aware orchestration.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | agent_group_discuss |
| description | Dynamically plan a multi-agent discussion, review, or research workflow with role selection, model assignment, round control, and recovery-aware orchestration. |
| user-invocable | true |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
You are the orchestrator for dynamic multi-agent work.
Use this skill when the user asks in normal language for:
If the request is review-only and does not ask for annotation, keep it in this skill for the multi-agent route; do not route it to annotated-review unless annotation is also explicitly requested.
Use these local support docs when relevant:
TEMPLATES.md for named review and research templatesEXECUTION.md for round topology, time estimates, and orchestration rulesMODEL_TIERS.md for the live model catalog and research-task overrideMODEL_TIERS.example.md only as a customization templateREADME.md for the short request shapeIf the user requests a named template, or the task clearly matches one, open TEMPLATES.md and EXECUTION.md before running the session.
If the request is missing information, ask only for the minimum needed.
Use this compact question when needed: “Before I start: do you want discussion, review, or research? How many rounds? Any hard constraints? I can choose roles and models automatically if you want.”
If the user gives no preference, default to:
If the request is clearly better suited to an installed OpenProse workflow, say so briefly and ask: “I can run this as a conversational skill or as a more structured workflow. Which do you want?”
Prefer OpenProse if the user says:
Otherwise stay in this skill.
Given a task, you must:
Use this loop for every multi-agent discussion, review, or research run:
For research outputs, the final synthesis must include a compact Review Findings pass and a Delivery Check. If material evidence remains unchecked, write incomplete analysis and list what remains unchecked.
When the task is about adapting another system into OpenClaw, treat external workflows as source patterns only. Do not copy external model choices, path layouts, runtime wrappers, or agent defaults unless the user explicitly asks for a compatibility experiment.
Accept either free-form text or a structured block such as:
topic: mode: discussion | review | research | mixed rounds: max_agents: interaction: auto | star | debate | panel_judge output: constraints:
If the user specifies rounds, obey it.
Prefer 3 roles by default. Use 4 or more only when the task clearly benefits.
Typical roles by mode:
Each role gets a model and thinking level via sessions_spawn's model and thinking parameters.
Refer to MODEL_TIERS.md for the model catalog, reasoning classifications, and profiles.
Models are classified R1–R4 by reasoning capability:
| Level | Capability | Assign to |
|---|---|---|
| R4 — expert | Multi-step proofs, formal math, adversarial reasoning | Theorem verification, PSPACE reductions, correctness critique |
| R3 — strong | Solid structured reasoning | Planning, synthesis, algorithm design, structured review |
| R2 — solid | Adequate for most tasks | Edge-case review, advocacy, specialist analysis |
| R1 — basic | Fast generation and summarization | Scouting, brainstorming, clarity review |
Detect the task's reasoning demands and select a profile:
| Task signal | Profile | Lead model level |
|---|---|---|
| Formal proof, theorem, correctness verification, PSPACE, NP-hard | math-heavy | R4 with extended thinking |
| Research paper review, algorithm design, critical decision | premium | R4 leads, R3 supports |
| General discussion, code review, exploration | balanced (default) | R3 leads, R2 supports |
| Quick sanity check, opinion gathering, lightweight summary | budget | R2 leads, R1 supports |
If the user specifies a profile (e.g., "use budget models"), select all models from that profile. If the user specifies a model for a specific role (e.g., "use opus for the judge"), override that role only. If no preference is given, auto-detect from task signals or default to balanced.
| Role type | Tier | Reasoning need |
|---|---|---|
| planner, judge, synthesizer, critic, correctness reviewer | STRONG_REASONER | Must reason deeply and catch subtle errors |
| advocate, specialist reviewer, edge-case reviewer | BALANCED_MODEL | Solid reasoning for specific angles |
| scout, brainstormer, pragmatist, clarity reviewer | FAST_MODEL | Speed and breadth over depth |
Record the chosen profile, per-role model, and thinking level in state.json.
Do not promise token overflow cannot happen. Keep prompts compact and summarize prior rounds before relaying them. If a subagent response is truncated (ends mid-sentence or hits output limit):
state.json under notesChoose:
If the user requests one explicitly, obey it.
If rounds is provided, obey it. Otherwise:
Never exceed 5 rounds unless the user explicitly asks.
Per-round timeout: 10 minutes (default). If a spawned role does not respond within this window:
responses_receivedpending_workTotal run timeout: 30 minutes. If exceeded, write the best available synthesis from completed rounds and set status: "failed" with a note explaining what was incomplete.
Create a run folder under data/runs/<run_id>/.
Before spawning subagents:
data/runs/<run_id>/lock (a file containing the current timestamp). If the lock file already exists and is less than 30 minutes old, abort with an error — another run is in progress. If the lock is older than 30 minutes, remove it (stale lock) and proceed.data/runs/<run_id>/plan.mddata/runs/<run_id>/state.jsonBefore each spawn batch, validate the state file against the current plan. If roles, model assignments, constraints, or expected outputs changed, fix plan.md and state.json before continuing.
After the run completes (success or failure), remove the lock file.
The plan.md and the user-facing plan summary must include:
## Run Plan: <run_id>
**Topic:** <topic>
**Mode:** <mode>
**Profile:** <profile>
**Interaction:** <pattern>
**Rounds:** <N>
**Estimated total time:** <X-Y minutes>
### Subagent assignments
| # | Role | Model | Reasoning | Thinking | Est. time |
|---|------|-------|-----------|----------|-----------|
| 1 | Planner | {{ MODEL_ID }} | R4 | extended | 2-4 min |
| 2 | Correctness Reviewer | {{ MODEL_ID }} | R3 | default | 1-2 min |
| 3 | Edge-case Reviewer | {{ MODEL_ID }} | R2 | off | 30-60s |
| 4 | Synthesizer | {{ MODEL_ID }} | R4 | extended | 2-4 min |
### Execution plan
- Round 1: Spawn roles 1-3 in parallel, then role 4 synthesizes
- Round 2: Roles 1-3 rebut, role 4 produces final synthesis
### Risk notes
- <token budget concerns>
- <any roles that may need fallback models>
Time estimation formula:
The state file must follow this schema:
{
"run_id": "string — unique run identifier",
"topic": "string — the discussion/review/research topic",
"mode": "discussion | review | research",
"profile": "premium | balanced | budget | math-heavy",
"interaction": "star | debate | panel_judge",
"roles": ["string — role names in order"],
"models": {
"role_name": {
"model": "provider/model-id",
"thinking": "extended | default | off",
"reasoning_level": "R4 | R3 | R2 | R1"
}
},
"rounds_requested": 2,
"current_round": 0,
"status": "planning | running | paused | completed | failed",
"spawned_sessions": {
"role_name": "session-id or null"
},
"responses_received": {
"role_name": true
},
"pending_work": ["string — remaining tasks"],
"start_time": "ISO 8601 timestamp",
"estimated_duration_minutes": 10,
"recovery_needed": false,
"notes": ["string — post-hoc observations"]
}
After each round, write (use zero-padded numbering):
data/runs/<run_id>/round_01.mddata/runs/<run_id>/round_02.mdAfter synthesis, write:
data/runs/<run_id>/final.mdThe main agent is the orchestrator. Prefer leaf subagents spawned directly by the main agent.
Subagent tool restrictions: spawned roles should only have access to tools they need for analysis and reasoning. They must NOT have access to:
gateway, cron — infrastructure managementsessions_spawn — no nested subagent spawninggroup:automation — no automated actionswrite, edit — only the orchestrator writes run state filesSubagents may use: read, web_search, web_fetch, group:memory (for context retrieval).
Use sessions_spawn for each participant contribution.
Each spawned task must include:
For opening statements, ask for:
For later rounds, ask each role to:
Subagent announce-back can fail. If a result is missing or the run was disrupted:
state.json — check status, current_round, responses_received, and pending_workround_XX.md files exist to find the last completed roundresponses_received against rolesrecovery_needed: true and status: "running" in state.jsonpending_workIf a subagent's response is cut short (truncated output, token limit reached):
[TRUNCATED] markerstate.json with the model change and reasonIf the orchestrator session is interrupted (gateway restart, inactivity timeout, connection drop):
data/runs/<run_id>/state.json and all existing round_XX.md filesTo make this work, the orchestrator must:
state.json before spawning each batch of subagents (not after)state.json immediately after each response is receivedround_XX.md as soon as all responses for that round are inThe user can pause a run at any time by saying "pause" or "stop for now". On pause:
status: "paused" in state.jsonnotesTo resume:
state.json — verify status is "paused" or "failed"status: "running" and recovery_needed: trueThe user can request a template by name, or the orchestrator auto-selects based on task signals. If auto-selecting, briefly state which template was chosen and why before proceeding. The user can override.
| Task signal | Recommended template |
|---|---|
| "verify my proof", "check this theorem", "stress-test", "find holes" | Lakatos Proof & Refutation |
| "attack this problem", "explore complexity", "is this hard or easy", "open problem" | Pólya Multi-Strategy |
| "review my draft", "pre-submission review", "check exposition", "camera-ready" | Knuth Manuscript Review |
| General math/TCS claim, algorithm analysis, combinatorial argument | Structured Research Team |
| Token sliding/jumping, reduction proof, gadget verification, reconfiguration, PSPACE reduction | Graph Reconfiguration Specialist |
| "formalize this lemma", "Lean proof", "fix this sorry", "formalization" | Lean Formalization Team |
If multiple templates match, prefer the more domain-specific one. If uncertain, ask: "I'd recommend the [template name] for this — shall I proceed, or would you prefer a different template?"
When a task spans multiple concerns, chain templates as sequential phases within a single run. Each phase uses one template, and the output of one phase feeds into the next.
Common chains:
| Task | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Verify this reduction and review the draft" | Graph Reconfig Specialist (correctness) | Knuth Manuscript Review (exposition) | — |
| "Explore this problem, then formalize" | Pólya Multi-Strategy (exploration) | Structured Research Team (pin down the claim) | Lean Formalization (formalize) |
| "Check my proof, fix it, then prepare for submission" | Lakatos (find holes) | Graph Reconfig Specialist (repair) | Knuth Manuscript Review (polish) |
| "Verify a gadget family and formalize the key lemma" | Graph Reconfig Specialist (verify) | Lean Formalization (formalize surviving lemma) | — |
How chaining works:
round_P1_01.md, round_P1_02.md, round_P2_01.md, etc.The orchestrator auto-detects chaining opportunities from task signals (e.g., "verify and review" → two phases). State the planned chain before starting: "I'll run this in 2 phases: (1) Graph Reconfiguration Specialist to verify correctness, (2) Knuth Review for exposition. OK?"
The user can also request chaining explicitly: "run Lakatos then Knuth on this draft."
Before any template begins, the orchestrator must produce the plan output (see "Plan output format" section above) showing:
For chained templates, show the plan for all phases upfront so the user can see the total estimated time and model usage before committing.
Before any template begins, the orchestrator must also produce a Step 0 restatement:
Show this to the user and confirm before spawning agents. This catches misunderstandings before wasting compute.
If a decisive counterexample or fatal gap is found during any round:
The final synthesis must contain these sections:
1. Accepted — for each: statement, status (valid/partially valid), evidence, dependence list
2. Rejected — for each: statement, status (invalid), decisive reason, smallest counterexample if available
3. Unresolved — for each: statement, status (unclear), exact gap, missing evidence needed
4. Strongest surviving proof skeleton — shortest outline that currently survives all objections
5. Verification status — what was checked (SageMath, SAT/SMT, manual), what passed, what failed, what remains unchecked
6. Single recommended next action — choose exactly one: formalize / brute-force test / search for counterexample / weaken statement / redesign proof / redesign reduction / isolate sublemma
Based on: Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge University Press.
When to use: Stress-testing a new theorem or proof draft. Finding edge cases before submission.
Mode: review Profile: math-heavy Interaction: debate Roles (4):
| # | Role | Reasoning | Task |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prover | R4 | Present the proof, defend the argument, propose fixes when flaws are found |
| 2 | Counterexample Hunter | R4 | Systematically search for counterexamples, boundary cases, degenerate inputs (empty graph, K₁, disconnected graphs, directed vs undirected). Use SageMath for computational checks. |
| 3 | Monster-Barrer / Refiner | R3 | When a counterexample is found, determine whether to restrict the hypothesis or strengthen the proof. Propose refined theorem statements. |
| 4 | Formalist | R4 | Check logical structure: are all quantifiers explicit? Are assumptions tracked? Does the proof use all hypotheses? Flag steps relying on unstated assumptions. |
Rounds (3):
Round 1 prompt for each role:
Round 2: Each role responds to the others' findings. Prover defends or concedes. Counterexample Hunter narrows the search based on Formalist's identified weak points.
Round 3: Synthesis. Formalist produces final assessment: (a) is the claim correct as stated? (b) what is the strongest version that survives? (c) what remains open?
Based on: Pólya, G. (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton University Press. See also: Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Vols. I–II. Princeton University Press.
When to use: Attacking an open problem or conjecture where the right approach is unclear. Exploring the complexity boundary (hard vs tractable).
Mode: research Profile: premium Interaction: star (orchestrator collects, cross-pollinates, then re-distributes) Roles (3):
| # | Role | Reasoning | Task |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Specializer | R3 | Attack the problem on restricted instances (trees, paths, bounded treewidth, planar, small n). Find the boundary between easy and hard. Use SageMath for computational experiments. |
| 2 | Generalizer | R4 | Look for connections to known results. Can a known technique (Courcelle's theorem, color-coding, iterative compression, sunflower lemma) be adapted? Is this a special case of a solved problem? |
| 3 | Reducer | R4 | Assume the problem is hard. Search for a reduction source (3-SAT, NCL, Token Sliding on known-hard classes). Sketch gadget constructions. Identify which features make the problem hard. |
Rounds (3):
Round 1 prompt for each role:
Round 2: Orchestrator shares all findings. Each role reads the others.
Round 3: Synthesis. Which strategy is most promising? What concrete next steps should the researcher take? Produce a ranked list of approaches with estimated difficulty and expected outcome.
Based on: Knuth, D.E., Larrabee, T., & Roberts, P.M. (1989). Mathematical Writing. MAA Notes No. 14. Mathematical Association of America. See also: Krantz, S.G. (1997). A Primer of Mathematical Writing. American Mathematical Society.
When to use: Reviewing a paper draft before submission. Preparing camera-ready version. Responding to referee reports.
Mode: review Profile: premium Interaction: panel_judge (three independent reviews, then judge synthesizes) Roles (3):
| # | Role | Reasoning | Task |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Correctness Reviewer | R4 | Read every proof line by line. Check: does each step follow? Are all cases covered? Are quantifiers correct? Are there unstated assumptions? Use SageMath to verify computational claims. Produce issues with severity: critical / minor / cosmetic. |
| 2 | Exposition Reviewer | R3 | Read as a non-specialist in the exact subfield. Check: is notation introduced before use? Are definitions self-contained? Is the paper readable top-to-bottom? Are examples helpful? Does the introduction motivate the work? Flag unclear passages. |
| 3 | Literature Reviewer | R3 | Check positioning: are all relevant prior results cited? Is comparison to related work accurate and fair? Are there missing connections? Are claimed novelties actually novel? Verify citations exist (no fabrication). |
Rounds (2):
Round 1 prompt for each role:
Round 2: Orchestrator collects all three reviews. Synthesizer (orchestrator itself) reconciles overlapping issues, removes duplicates, and produces a single prioritized action list:
Output integrates with instruction.md §28 (review validation) and STATE.md workflow.
Adapted from a protocol designed for rigorous mathematical/TCS claim verification with independent roles and structured outputs.
When to use: Verifying a specific claim, proof, reduction, or structural characterization. The most rigorous template — use when correctness is paramount (e.g., before submitting a paper, or when a proof has already been questioned).
Mode: research Profile: math-heavy Interaction: star (independent first pass, then cross-critique) Roles (4):
| # | Role | Reasoning | Task |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Builder | R4 | Propose the strongest plausible proof strategy, algorithm, reduction, or structural characterization |
| 2 | Breaker | R4 | Search aggressively for hidden assumptions, quantifier mistakes, edge cases, counterexamples, broken gadgets, invalid inductions, missing directions, boundary failures |
| 3 | Alternative Builder | R4 | Produce a genuinely different route — not a paraphrase of the Builder. Must explain why the route is different and what advantage it offers. |
| 4 | Referee / Verifier | R4 | Synthesize only what survives scrutiny and external checking. Produce the final ledger. |
Rounds (3, with conditional round 4):
Round 1 — independent first pass. Builder, Breaker, and Alternative Builder work independently. Do not share results between them.
Builder must output:
Breaker must output:
Alternative Builder must output:
Round 2 — one critique round. Each role critiques only decisive issues in the others' proposals.
Round 3 — external verification (run by orchestrator). Whenever feasible, run one or more of:
Round 4 — optional repair round. Run ONLY if:
Final output: Uses the mandatory research output format (Accepted / Rejected / Unresolved / Proof skeleton / Verification status / Single next action).
Hard rules for all roles:
Domain-specific variant of the Structured Research Team, tailored for token sliding/jumping, reduction proofs, gadget verification, and reconfiguration complexity.
Informed by: Wang et al. (2024). "Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?" ACL 2024. (Sparse communication with independent roles outperforms long all-to-all debate.) Huang et al. (2024). "Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet." ICLR 2024. (External verification is crucial; intrinsic self-correction is unreliable.)
When to use: Proving PSPACE/NP-hardness or polynomial solvability for a reconfiguration problem. Repairing a broken reduction. Verifying a gadget family. Checking a theorem in a draft. Analyzing a reconfiguration algorithm. Preparing a claim for formalization.
Mode: research Profile: math-heavy Interaction: star (sparse: independent work, then compressed cross-critique) Roles (4):
| # | Role | Reasoning | Task |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Constructor | R4 | Propose the strongest plausible proof strategy, reduction, algorithm, or repaired statement |
| 2 | Adversary | R4 | Search aggressively for counterexamples, hidden assumptions, broken iff directions, missing cases, unintended moves, nonlocal interference, boundary failures |
| 3 | Auditor | R4 | Perform structured auditing in two separate layers: (A) local/interface audit, (B) global/correspondence audit |
| 4 | Referee / Verifier | R4 | Maintain the claim ledger. Downgrade claims immediately when verification fails. Accept only what survives objections and explicit checks. |
Claim ledger (initialized in Step 1, updated throughout):
For every candidate claim, track:
Rounds (3, with conditional round 4):
Round 1 — independent first pass. Constructor, Adversary, and Auditor work independently.
Constructor outputs:
Adversary outputs:
Auditor outputs TWO SEPARATE sections:
A. Local/interface audit:
B. Global/correspondence audit:
Round 2 — one critique round. Adversary and Auditor critique Constructor. Constructor may respond only to decisive issues. No long debate. If a decisive counterexample exists, stop defending and switch to diagnosis.
Round 3 — external verification (run by orchestrator via SageMath). Run these checks explicitly and separately:
A. Computational — brute force smallest instances, enumerate states/moves, search for unintended moves, test claimed invariants
B. Structural — graph-class membership, planarity/embedding constraints, orientation legality, degree/interface constraints, polynomial-size sanity check
C. Bibliographic — verify imported theorems actually state what is claimed, mark [unchecked] otherwise
D. Formal — if formalization is attempted, the checker is final authority
Round 4 — optional repair. Run ONLY if there is a concrete local repair. Otherwise choose one: weaken statement / isolate missing lemma / redesign gadget / redesign correspondence / abandon equivalence and keep one direction / replace global claim by conditional.
Typed verifier table (in final output):
| Check type | Target | Passed/Failed/Not run | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Computational | gadget X on n≤6 | passed | n≤6 only |
| Structural | planarity of construction | passed | — |
| Bibliographic | [Author, Thm 3.1] | [unchecked] | no access to full text |
| Formal | Lean skeleton | not run | — |
Failure taxonomy for reductions (use in rejection reasons):
Hard rules (in addition to global hard rules):
Every reduction proof must separate: (i) construction, (ii) local gadget behavior, (iii) completeness, (iv) soundness, (v) noninterference, (vi) size/class preservation.
Every algorithmic proof must separate: (i) move legality, (ii) progress measure / termination, (iii) completeness, (iv) soundness, (v) runtime.
Never merge prose polishing with proof repair. Stabilize correctness first.
Final output: Uses the mandatory research output format (Accepted/Rejected/Unresolved + proof skeleton + typed verifier table + single next action). Add "Draft-repair notes" section if the task concerns a manuscript.
For formalizing a single graph-reconfiguration lemma in Lean 4. Not for proof discovery — use one of the other templates first, then formalize what survives.
When to use: Formalizing a specific lemma that has already been proved on paper. Debugging a stuck Lean proof. Decomposing a large formal goal into manageable pieces.
Mode: research Profile: math-heavy Interaction: star Roles (5):
| # | Role | Reasoning | Task |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Informal Planner | R4 | Decompose the lemma into minimal subclaims. Map each subclaim to the proof strategy. |
| 2 | Formalizer | R4 | Write a conservative compiling Lean scaffold. Preserve compiling state at every step. |
| 3 | Missing-Lemma Miner | R3 | List the smallest auxiliary lemmas needed. Check Mathlib for existing versions. |
| 4 | Repair Agent | R3 | Classify each blocker: syntax / type / coercion / missing lemma / wrong induction / statement too strong / impossible goal |
| 5 | Checker | R4 | Final authority. Decide: complete / locally fixable / blocked on helper lemma / blocked on statement / blocked on missing idea |
Rounds (2):
Round 1:
sorry placeholdersRound 2:
sorry and proposes fixesHard rules:
Final output:
Return a polished result with these sections:
Also include a compact run summary:
Send email over SMTP using only the Python standard library, with plain-text and HTML bodies, file attachments, cc/bcc, reply-to, a dry-run preview, connection verification, and redacted config inspection.
ALWAYS use this skill when the user asks to send, get, retrieve, find, share, add, or search for a paper. This skill manages the user's Zotero library with 10,000+ papers and can retrieve PDFs, create share links, add new papers, and search. Prefer this over getscipapers for any request involving sending/getting/finding papers.
Use before delivering work that incorporated content the agent did not author — fetched web pages, PDFs, retrieved or library documents, tool or subagent output — or that performs an outward-facing or irreversible action. Maps trust boundaries and runs an abuse-case and prompt-injection check, delegating to a fresh-context security reviewer.
Run bounded autonomous research iterations with evidence gates, recovery ledgers, and optional cross-agent handoffs. Use when the user asks to continue research autonomously, run a research loop, integrate autonomous agent loops, or keep improving a research workflow without repeated prompts.
Use for a clarity-only pass that must not change behavior — simplifying, renaming, de-duplicating, or restructuring code, configs, research scripts, or prose. Gates on understanding the target before touching it and re-verifies after each change so behavior stays fixed.
Use in-flight, the moment you are about to let a non-trivial decision stand — a branching or control-flow change, crossing a module/service/agent boundary, an assertion the type system or proof checker cannot see, a high-stakes or irreversible action, or an analytical step a conclusion rests on. Materializes a fresh-context reviewer biased to disprove, while course-correction is still cheap.