cw-panel

# Panel Review Convene multiple reviewer agents to analyze a piece, then synthesize their perspectives into a unified analysis that surfaces consensus, tensions, and priorities. ## When to Use - Before publishing something high-stakes - When you want multiple perspectives without running reviewers manually - When you suspect different aspects need different kinds of attention - When you're too close to the work to know what feedback you need ## The Flow ### 1. Load Context Read `../../references/context-contract.md`, the draft, and any available brief, outline, project instructions, feedback, or status metadata to understand: - **piece_type** — essay, argument, explainer, narrative, etc. - **audience** — general, specialist, insider - **stage** — early draft, revision, near-final - **goals** — if stated Infer missing context from the draft and request. Do not require `.status.yaml`. ### 2. Propose Panel Based on piece context, propose 4-6 reviewers. **Selection heuristics:** | Signal | Suggests Including | |--------|-------------------| | Personal/reflective content | sedaris, mom | | Argumentative content | nemesis, vonnegut | | Technical or jargon-heavy | reader, mom, hemingway | | Narrative structure | vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin | | Feels slow or wandering | sorkin | | Feels bloated | hemingway | | High-stakes / pre-publish | nemesis, hemingway | | Cold read, uncertain audience response, or missing setup | reader | | General audience | reader | | Non-expert accessibility | mom | | Early stage | vonnegut (fundamentals) | | Late stage | hemingway, nemesis (polish, stress-test) | **Check the active writer and project context for:** - Preferred reviewers - Reviewers to exclude - Past patterns **Present the proposal:** ``` ## Proposed Panel **Draft:** [title or slug] **Context:** [piece_type] for [audience], currently at [stage] Based on this context, I recommend: | Reviewer | Why | |----------|-----| | **[name]** | [One-line rationale tied to piece context] | | **[name]** | [Rationale] | | **[name]** | [Rationale] | | **[name]** | [Rationale] | **Not including:** - **[name]** — [Why not relevant for this piece] - **[name]** — [Why not] Proceed with this panel, or adjust? ``` Wait for user confirmation or modification. ### 3. Run Reviewers in Parallel Once confirmed: 1. Run all selected reviewers in parallel when the active platform supports parallel workers and the user's explicit panel request authorizes them. - On Claude, use the matching `compound-writing:review:*` subagent when available. - On Codex or another runtime, use the matching reviewer skill or an isolated worker with that lens. - Give each reviewer the draft plus the minimum relevant context. - Each reviewer returns its standard prose output independently. 2. Collect all outputs **Example spawning pattern:** ``` [Spawn in parallel:] - Task: nemesis-reviewer with draft - Task: mom-reviewer with draft - Task: hemingway-reviewer with draft - Task: sorkin-reviewer with draft ``` ### 4. Run Synthesizer Use the panel-synthesizer agent when available; otherwise synthesize the outputs directly. Include: - The draft - Draft context from the active brief, instructions, metadata, or careful inference - All reviewer outputs (full prose) **Synthesizer prompt should include:** ``` ## Draft [full draft text] ## Context piece_type: [from context or inference] audience: [from context or inference] stage: [from context or inference] goals: [from context if present] ## Reviewer Outputs ### nemesis-reviewer [full output] ### mom-reviewer [full output] ### hemingway-reviewer [full output] [etc.] ``` ### 5. Return Synthesis Present the synthesizer's output to the user. ## Panel Size - **Minimum:** 3 reviewers (fewer than this, just run them individually) - **Recommended:** 4-5 reviewers (good coverage without redundancy) - **Maximum:** 8 reviewers (all of them—full stress test) ## Available Reviewers | Reviewer | Subagent Type | Focus | |----------|---------------|-------| | nemesis | compound-writing:review:nemesis-reviewer | Logical rigor, unsupported claims | | reader | compound-writing:review:reader-reviewer | First-time reading experience, missing setup, trust and friction | | mom | compound-writing:review:mom-reviewer | Accessibility, jargon, general reader | | hemingway | compound-writing:review:hemingway-reviewer | Economy, cutting, word-level | | sedaris | compound-writing:review:sedaris-reviewer | Specificity, humor, voice | | sorkin | compound-writing:review:sorkin-reviewer | Pacing, momentum, forward motion | | vonnegut | compound-writing:review:vonnegut-reviewer | Story fundamentals, structure | | hitchcock | compound-writing:review:hitchcock-reviewer | Tension, suspense, stakes | ## Default Panels by Piece Type If the active context names a piece type, use it as a starting point: | piece_type | Default Panel | |------------|---------------| | `essay` / `personal` | reader, sedaris, vonnegut, sorkin | | `argument` / `opinion` | nemesis, vonnegut, hemingway, reader | | `explainer` / `technical` | reader, mom, hemingway, sorkin | | `narrative` / `story` | vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin, sedaris | | `newsletter` | reader, sorkin, hemingway | Always adjust based on specific signals in the draft. ## Example Session ``` User: /cw-panel Agent: I'll convene a panel to review your draft. Let me read it and check the status. [Reads draft] [Loads the brief and project context: personal essay, general audience, revision stage, goal: "make it land emotionally without being sappy"] ## Proposed Panel **Draft:** father-and-the-sea **Context:** essay for general audience, revision stage Based on the context—personal essay aiming for emotional impact without sentimentality—I recommend: | Reviewer | Why | |----------|-----| | **mom** | General audience check. Will flag where you lose non-insiders. | | **sedaris** | Personal material that might benefit from more specificity or humor. | | **sorkin** | Revision stage—check if pacing is tight. | | **nemesis** | The emotional claims need to be earned, not asserted. | **Not including:** - **hemingway** — The prose reads clean; economy isn't the issue here - **hitchcock** — Not a tension-driven piece - **vonnegut** — Structure is solid; this needs polish not fundamentals Proceed with this panel, or adjust? User: Add hemingway actually, I think it might be overwritten Agent: Adding hemingway. Running the panel now. [Spawns 5 reviewer agents in parallel] [Collects outputs] [Spawns panel-synthesizer with draft + context + all outputs] ## Panel Synthesis **Panel:** nemesis, hemingway, mom, sedaris, sorkin **Piece context:** essay for general audience, revision stage, goal: emotional impact without sappiness --- ### Consensus Findings | Issue | Flagged By | Recommendation | |-------|------------|----------------| | Opening two paragraphs are slow | sorkin, hemingway, nemesis | Cut or restructure—start closer to the boat | | "He taught me everything" is unearned | nemesis, sedaris | Show what he taught, don't declare it | | Section 3 gets abstract | mom, sorkin | Ground it in a specific moment | --- ### Productive Tensions **Tension: The fishing gear paragraph** > "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s, a reel > that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught anything but > his own thumb." | Cut it | Keep it | |--------|---------| | **hemingway:** 47 words that could be 15. "His tackle box held decades of failure" does the job. | **sedaris:** This is the most alive moment in the piece. The specific details are doing real work. | **What's at stake:** The piece aims for emotional impact without sappiness. Specific, wry details (sedaris) might be the path there. But if they slow momentum, they work against the goal. --- ### Unique Insights - **sedaris:** "There's a joke hiding in the part about him never admitting he was wrong. You're circling it but won't commit." - **nemesis:** "Your ending asks the reader to feel something you haven't set up. The 'I finally understood' move is unearned." --- ### Recommended Priorities 1. **Restructure the opening** — Three reviewers flagged this. Start on the boat, not before it. 2. **Earn the ending** — The emotional payoff needs setup. Show what you finally understood through a scene, not a declaration. 3. **Decide on the tackle box** — Genuine tension. Your call based on what you're optimizing for. --- ### The Hard Question > What specifically did you learn from him that you couldn't have learned from > anyone else? Multiple reviewers noted you assert the relationship's importance > without showing what made it irreplaceable. ``` ## Error Handling **If a reviewer fails to spawn:** - Note which reviewer is missing - Proceed with available outputs - Mention the gap in synthesis **If the draft has no metadata:** - Infer what you can from the draft and request. - State only assumptions that affect the panel or verdict. - Do not create a status file merely to run the review. **If user provides no draft:** - Ask for the draft path or slug to load - Or ask them to paste the draft For tensions that deserve another round, offer `cw-debate`; do not automatically spend the extra time and context. ## Lessons [Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]