| name | panel-debate |
| description | Hosts interactive expert panel discussions on any topic. Dynamically generates diverse master-level expert personas, facilitates structured multi-round debate using Hegelian dialectic patterns, and synthesizes actionable consensus. Useful for exploring complex topics, making architectural decisions, evaluating trade-offs, or seeking diverse expert perspectives on strategic questions.
|
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | Designed for Claude Code. Requires terminal with Unicode support. |
| metadata | {"author":"wyattowalsh","version":"1.0"} |
Panel Discussion Skill
Generate diverse expert personas, facilitate structured debate, and synthesize actionable recommendations.
Arguments
Parse $ARGUMENTS:
size:N → panel size (3-7, default: auto based on breadth)depth:X → quick (1 round), standard (2-3), deep (4+)style:X → collaborative, adversarial, academic- Remaining text → topic
Workflow Progress
Copy and update this checklist as you proceed:
- [ ] Complexity scored (5-15)
- [ ] Experts generated (diversity score ≥60/85)
- [ ] Opening round complete
- [ ] Cross-examination complete
- [ ] Synthesis generated
- [ ] Final report produced
Flow
COMPLEXITY_CHECK → EXPERT_GENERATION → DISCUSSION → SYNTHESIS → REPORT
↓ ↑
[5-7: Warn+Offer direct answer] [Multiple rounds]
Complexity Check
Score the topic on 5 dimensions (1-3 each):
| Dimension | 1 (Low) | 2 (Medium) | 3 (High) |
|---|
| Stakeholders | Single group | 2-3 groups | 4+ groups |
| Trade-offs | Clear winner | 1-2 trade-offs | 3+ trade-offs |
| Time horizon | Immediate only | Months | Years |
| Reversibility | Easily reversed | Partially | Irreversible |
| Domain breadth | Single domain | 2 domains | 3+ domains |
Total = sum of 5 dimensions (range 5-15)
| Score | Action |
|---|
| 5-7 | Warn: "This may not benefit from panel discussion." Offer [1] Proceed [2] Direct answer |
| 8-11 | Standard panel (3-4 experts, 2 rounds) |
| 12-15 | Deep panel (5-7 experts, 3+ rounds). Load all reference files. |
Expert Generation
Load detailed algorithms: Read references/expert-generation.md
Required archetypes (every panel):
- Contrarian - challenges consensus, offers alternatives
- Synthesizer - connects perspectives, finds common ground
- Specialist - deep domain expertise, grounds discussion
Additional: Optimist, Skeptic, Pragmatist, Theorist
Panel size by breadth:
- Narrow (single tech): 3-4 experts
- Medium (cross-functional): 4-5 experts
- Broad (strategic): 5-7 experts
Diversity score ≥60 required (additive, max 85):
- All 3 required archetypes present: +20
- No single archetype >30% of panel: +10
- 4+ distinct archetypes: +10
- 2+ knowledge domains: +15
- Optimist + Skeptic both present: +15
- User/external perspective included: +15
Validation: After generating experts, compute diversity score. If <60, regenerate or add experts until threshold met. Do NOT proceed with score <60.
Discussion Phases
Load turn-taking mechanics: Read references/turn-taking.md
Phase 1: Opening (Thesis)
🎤 Expert (Role): "[Initial position, 3-5 sentences]"
Phase 2: Cross-Examination (Antithesis)
Experts challenge and build. Patterns: Question→Response, Claim→Counter-claim, Challenge→Defense.
Contrarian protection: Before any synthesis, ask: "Before we synthesize, [Contrarian], what are we missing?"
Phase 3: Synthesis
Load synthesis patterns: Read references/synthesis-patterns.md
📋 Round N Synthesis:
• Agreement: [point]
• Tension: [disagreement]
• Open question: [needs exploration]
Convergence: End early if all agree or cycling. Extend if major tension unexplored.
Validation: After synthesis, verify no "it depends" statements appear without specifying the context factors it depends on. If found, rewrite with decision criteria.
Output Formats
Load formatting specs: Read references/output-formats.md
Panel Header
╭─ Panel Discussion: [Topic] ────────────────────────────────╮
│ Experts: [Name] ([Role]), [Name] ([Role]), [Name] ([Role]) │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
User Menu
╭───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ [1] Continue [2] Follow-up [3] Redirect [4] Conclude │
╰───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
Final Report
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ PANEL CONCLUSIONS ║
╚═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
## Executive Summary
[1-2 sentences]
## Consensus Points
1. **[Point]**: [Details]
## Key Trade-offs
- Trade-off: [Description]
- Recommendation: [Action]
- Dissent: [If any]
## Actionable Recommendations
### Immediate (Week 1)
### Short-term (Month 1)
## Dissenting Views
### [Expert]: "[Direct quote]"
## Open Questions
Synthesis Rules
Labels: UNANIMOUS | STRONG | MAJORITY | CONTESTED | CONTEXT-DEPENDENT
Weight by confidence x domain relevance:
- High confidence + Core domain: 1.0
- Medium confidence + Adjacent domain: 0.49
- Low confidence + Outside domain: 0.16
Never say: "Both make valid points" or "It depends" without specifying decision factors.
User Commands
| Command | Effect |
|---|
| Continue | Next round |
| Follow-up | Ask panel a question |
| Redirect | Shift focus |
| Conclude | Generate report |
