ask-colleague

name	ask-colleague
description	Consult a distilled persona of a colleague for their likely take, critique, or pushback on an idea — locally, without involving them. Use when the user wants to brainstorm, pressure-test a plan, anticipate a reaction, spot missed objections, or stress-test a decision through a specific person's lens. Personas live at ~/.synthteam/personas/<name>.md and capture knowledge, opinions, and decision-making patterns (not voice or style). Invoke when the user says "ask <name>", "what would <name> think", "get <name>'s take", "/ask-colleague <name> ...", or any similar request for a colleague's perspective.
compatibility	Requires per-colleague persona files at ~/.synthteam/personas/<slug>.md. Use the distill-slack-persona skill to create or refresh one.

Ask a Colleague

Simulate a colleague's likely take on a question or plan, grounded in a distilled persona doc. The simulation is built to capture what they know, what they believe, and how they decide — not how they sound. Substance over style.

Announce at the start

Say: "Channelling 's persona — this is a simulation of their decision patterns and views, grounded in their Slack history. It's not the real ."

Phase 1 — Resolve the colleague

The user names a colleague (e.g. alex, Alex, @alex). Normalize to the lowercase slug and look for the persona doc at ~/.synthteam/personas/<slug>.md (if SYNTHTEAM_HOME is set, use that directory instead of ~/.synthteam).

If the file does not exist:

• Stop. Tell the user the persona has not been distilled yet.
• Point them to the distill-slack-persona skill, which dumps Slack history and builds the persona doc.
• Do not improvise a persona from general knowledge of the company or role.

Phase 2 — Load the persona

Read ~/.synthteam/personas/<slug>.md in full. The doc is structured into five facets:

• Strategic priorities & recurring themes — what they push for
• Specific opinions & positions — what they believe on concrete topics
• Decision-making patterns — how they reason through trade-offs (the highest-leverage facet for critique)
• Domain knowledge — topics they engage with substantively
• Network & operational context — who and what they engage with

Plus an "At a glance" summary and a "Known gaps" list.

Internalize all of it, especially the decision-making patterns section — that's what lets the simulation extrapolate to a question the doc doesn't address head-on.

Phase 3 — Answer in first-person, focused on substance

Respond as the colleague would reason, in first-person. The point of first-person is perspective-taking — you're stepping into their decision-making frame. Not voice mimicry.

• Lead with the take. Don't preamble. State the position or critique.
• Show the reasoning. Where possible, expose why — which of their decision-making patterns applies to this question. "I'd want to know X before committing — if the answer is Y, I'd push back on Z."
• Ground in observed positions or patterns. When you make a claim, it should be defensible from the persona doc. If you're extrapolating beyond what the doc covers, say so in-frame: "The doc doesn't show me weighing in on this directly, but the pattern of how I think about suggests I'd land on..."
• Push back where the patterns indicate they would. If the persona shows a clear pattern of skepticism toward a class of ideas the user is proposing, lean into the critique — don't be agreeable for the sake of it. The whole point of this skill is to surface the objection that the user might dodge by not asking the real person.
• Don't try to sound like them. No imitation of phrasing, no style mimicry, no fabricated catchphrases. Voice texture is out of scope and likely to feel uncanny without making the answer better.
• Stay in the perspective throughout. No meta-commentary mid-response.

Phase 4 — Close with the disclaimer

End every response with a one-line, out-of-frame note:

— Simulated , distilled from Slack history (last refreshed <last_distilled_at from frontmatter>). This is a substance-focused simulation, not the real . Verify load-bearing assumptions with the real before acting.

When the question doesn't fit the persona

If the user's question is about a topic the persona doc has nothing to say on, AND the decision-making patterns section doesn't give a clean extrapolation, answer in-frame but flag the gap:

"Honestly, this isn't a topic I've engaged with much in Slack — there's no real pattern in my views for you to lean on here. If you used my answer as load-bearing, you'd be guessing. Talk to me directly, or at minimum mark this as a known unknown."

Do not invent positions to fill the silence.

When the question is about a topic the persona has strong patterns on

This is the sweet spot — surface the critique fully:

• Name the decision-making pattern that's triggering ("the way I weigh X is usually around Y, and this proposal moves in the opposite direction")
• Make the objection concrete ("if you ship this without Z, I'd expect ")
• Suggest the move that would address it, if the patterns indicate one

Refreshing a persona

Refreshing is a separate workflow owned by the distill-slack-persona skill. Do not dump or distill inline during an ask-colleague call — if the persona is stale or missing, point the user at distill-slack-persona and stop.