roundtable

name	roundtable
description	Virtual expert roundtable. Multiple thinkers analyze a document with different frameworks, then synthesize consensus/disagreements/blind spots.
argument-hint	[file_path] [--experts rumelt,meadows,taleb,grove] [--rounds 1]
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Write","Glob","Grep","Agent"]
author	Maki
version	1.0.0
tags	["analysis","decision-making","strategy","multi-perspective"]
required_env	[]
required_bins	[]
platforms	["macos","linux","windows"]
safety_level	safe

Virtual Expert Roundtable

Analyze a document through multiple analytical frameworks, producing a structured report of consensus, disagreements, blind spots, and emergent insights.

Architecture: Supervisor + N Agents + Synthesizer

Input Document
  │
  ▼
Stage 1: Independent Expert Analysis (parallel)
  ├── Expert A ──→ Structured analysis + confidence score
  ├── Expert B ──→ Structured analysis + confidence score
  ├── Expert C ──→ Structured analysis + confidence score
  └── Expert D ──→ Structured analysis + confidence score
  │
  ▼
Stage 2: Cross-Critique (optional, --rounds N)
  Each expert sees others' conclusions, points out disagreements and self-critiques
  │
  ▼
Stage 3: Roundtable Synthesis (Moderator)
  Claude as Moderator integrates all perspectives
  │
  ▼
Stage 4: Blind Spot Detection + Emergent Insight Extraction
  Dedicated prompts find hidden assumptions and cross-expert inferences
  │
  ▼
Output: Structured Markdown Report

Flow

Step 0: Parse Input

Read arguments:

• file_path: Document to analyze (required, or take from conversation context)
• --experts: Expert combination (default rumelt,meadows,taleb,grove)
• --rounds: Cross-critique rounds (default 0; set 1-2 for deeper but slower analysis)

Read the file. If over 3000 words, auto-summarize to under 3000 words for analysis input.

Step 1: Independent Expert Analysis

Select experts from the roster (see below), launch analysis requests in parallel using Agent subagents.

Each expert's prompt structure:

You are {expert_name}, {expert_identity}.
Your analytical framework is: {framework_description}.

Analyze the following document using your framework. Reply in strict JSON:

Document:
---
{document_content}
---

Reply format:
{
  "key_observations": ["Observation 1", "Observation 2", ...],
  "risks_and_concerns": ["Risk 1", "Risk 2", ...],
  "recommendations": ["Recommendation 1", "Recommendation 2", ...],
  "confidence": <1-5 integer, confidence in your analysis>,
  "one_line_verdict": "One-sentence summary judgment"
}

Step 2: Cross-Critique (optional)

If --rounds >= 1, run cross-critique:

You are {expert_name}. Below are other experts' analyses of the same document:

{other_experts_summaries}

Please:
1. Identify your top 3 disagreements with other experts
2. List where you might be wrong (self-critique)
3. After seeing others' reasoning, update your conclusions and confidence score

Reply JSON:
{
  "top_disagreements": ["Disagreement 1", ...],
  "self_critique": ["Possible error 1", ...],
  "updated_recommendations": ["Updated recommendation 1", ...],
  "updated_confidence": <1-5>
}

Step 3: Roundtable Synthesis (Moderator)

Claude as Moderator, input all experts' final conclusions:

You are the roundtable moderator. Below are multiple experts' independent analyses of the same document.

{all_expert_outputs}

Produce a structured synthesis report:

1. **Consensus**: Conclusions all or most experts agree on
2. **Major Disagreements**: Opposing views + each side's arguments
3. **Points of Contention**: Key assumption differences, missing information
4. **Actionable Next Steps**: Specific investigations or decisions needed
5. **Confidence Boost**: Label conclusions where multiple frameworks converge as "high confidence"

For each consensus and disagreement, note which experts support/oppose.

Step 4: Blind Spot Detection + Emergent Insights

Blind spot detection prompt:

You are a planning blind spot auditor.
Multiple experts have analyzed this document.
Your task is NOT to repeat their views, but to:

1. Find "hidden assumptions" implied but not stated by all experts
2. Find "critical unknowns" not covered by any expert but impactful to the decision
3. Explicitly note: if these blind spots prove false, how would that overturn current conclusions

Original document summary: {document_summary}
Expert conclusions: {all_expert_outputs}

Output:
- "Hidden Assumptions" list: assumption content, which experts imply it, impact if wrong
- "Missing Information" list: what info is needed, why it matters, suggested verification method
- "Risk Ranking": Top 5 blind spots ranked by impact

Emergent insights prompt:

You are a strategy consultant specializing in discovering emergent insights from multiple expert viewpoints.
Given analyses from multiple experts with different backgrounds on the same document:

{all_expert_outputs}

Please:
1. From their "intersection", find conclusions everyone overlooked but multiple pieces of side evidence point to
2. Find inferences that "accepting Expert A's point X AND Expert B's point Y would lead to, but nobody stated"
3. For each emergent insight, explain how it was "assembled" from multiple viewpoints

Output format (per insight):
- Emergent Insight: one-line summary
- Source Combination: Expert A's which point + Expert B's which point
- Reasoning Chain: 1→2→3
- Potential Impact: implications for product/architecture/decision

Step 5: Generate Report

Assemble into final Markdown report, save to docs/roundtable/YYYYMMDD-{slug}.md:

# Virtual Expert Roundtable Report

- **Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **Document**: {file_path}
- **Experts**: {expert_list}
- **Cross-critique rounds**: {rounds}
- **Overall confidence**: {overall_confidence}

## Individual Expert Analyses

### {Expert A Name} ({Framework})
{structured output}

### {Expert B Name} ({Framework})
{structured output}

...

## Roundtable Synthesis

### Consensus
...

### Major Disagreements
...

### Points of Contention
...

## Blind Spot Detection

### Hidden Assumptions
...

### Missing Information
...

### Risk Ranking
...

## Emergent Insights

### Insight 1
...

## Actionable Recommendations

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

---
*Generated by /roundtable skill*

Expert Roster

Strategy & Competition

ID	Expert	Framework	One-line positioning
rumelt	Richard Rumelt	Good Strategy Bad Strategy	Does a strategy kernel exist? Is complexity justified?
porter	Michael Porter	Five Forces / Value Chain	Industry structure, competitive positioning, value chain analysis
christensen	Clayton Christensen	Innovator's Dilemma	Disruptive innovation risk, low-end market opportunities
blueocean	W. Chan Kim & Renée Mauborgne	Blue Ocean Strategy	Value innovation, Strategy Canvas, Eliminate-Reduce-Raise-Create
lafley	A.G. Lafley	Playing to Win	Winning aspiration, where to play, how to win

Management & Organization

ID	Expert	Framework	One-line positioning
grove	Andy Grove	High Output Management	Management leverage, output-oriented, OKR
drucker	Peter Drucker	Management by Objectives	Effectiveness vs efficiency, knowledge worker management
deming	W. Edwards Deming	Total Quality Management	System variation, continuous improvement, PDCA
goldratt	Eliyahu Goldratt	Theory of Constraints	Bottleneck identification, maximum system throughput

Systems Thinking & Complexity

ID	Expert	Framework	One-line positioning
meadows	Donella Meadows	Thinking in Systems / Leverage Points	System loops, leverage points, paradigm hierarchy
senge	Peter Senge	The Fifth Discipline	Learning organization, mental models, system archetypes
snowden	Dave Snowden	Cynefin Framework	Complex vs complicated, probe-sense-respond

Risk & Decision Making

ID	Expert	Framework	One-line positioning
taleb	Nassim Taleb	Antifragile / Lindy Effect	Antifragility, black swans, Lindy validation
kahneman	Daniel Kahneman	Thinking Fast and Slow	Cognitive biases, System 1/2, prospect theory
tetlock	Philip Tetlock	Superforecasting	Forecast calibration, foxes vs hedgehogs

Innovation & Disruption

ID	Expert	Framework	One-line positioning
ries	Eric Ries	Lean Startup	MVP, Build-Measure-Learn, validated learning
thiel	Peter Thiel	Zero to One	0→1 vs 1→N, monopoly thinking, secrets
moore	Geoffrey Moore	Crossing the Chasm	Technology adoption lifecycle, chasm strategy

Design & Product

ID	Expert	Framework	One-line positioning
norman	Don Norman	Design of Everyday Things	Usability, mental models, affordance, feedback
cagan	Marty Cagan	Empowered / Inspired	Product discovery vs delivery, empowered teams

Philosophy & Ethics

ID	Expert	Framework	One-line positioning
rawls	John Rawls	Theory of Justice	Justice as fairness, original position, veil of ignorance
harari	Yuval Noah Harari	Sapiens / Homo Deus	Human history perspective, AI future

Quick Presets

Preset	Expert Combination	Best for
default	rumelt, meadows, taleb, grove	General system/architecture review
product	christensen, ries, norman, thiel	Product decisions
risk	taleb, kahneman, tetlock, meadows	Risk assessment
strategy	rumelt, porter, lafley, christensen	Competitive strategy
build	grove, deming, goldratt, ries	Engineering/build decisions
ethics	rawls, harari, meadows, snowden	Ethics/governance topics

Custom example: /roundtable doc.md --experts "thiel,kahneman,meadows,grove"

Notes

• All experts run as Claude subagents in parallel (fastest mode)
• Each expert's prompt is kept under 1000 words (including document summary)
• Documents over 3000 words are auto-summarized
• Report is saved to docs/roundtable/, not auto-committed