// Convenes expert panels for problem-solving. Use when user mentions panel, experts, multiple perspectives, MECE, DMAIC, RAPID, Six Sigma, root cause analysis, strategic decisions, or process improvement.
Use when anyone asks about KoNote hosting costs, deployment options, per-agency pricing, budget scenarios, cost assumptions, managed service model, Azure vs OVHcloud comparison, onboarding costs, or needs to update cost figures. Also use when a new developer or manager needs deployment context.
Use when proposing new features, reviewing code changes, evaluating integration requests, or onboarding to KoNote — checks proposals against Design Rationale Records (DRRs) to identify conflicts with established architectural decisions, rejected anti-patterns, and privacy/security constraints before implementation begins.
Check web pages and code for WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility compliance. Use when the user mentions accessibility, WCAG, a11y, screen readers, colour contrast, keyboard navigation, alt text, or asks to check if something is accessible or usable by people with disabilities.
Generate a beginner-friendly overview of a codebase or project. Use when the user asks to understand a project, wants an overview, is new to a codebase, asks what a project does, or wants to know how code is organised.
Use when making aesthetic decisions for web interfaces - choosing design direction, color palettes, typography, spacing systems, visual hierarchy, or UI polish. Use when user asks to make something look nicer, improve UX, choose a style, or needs guidance on crafted interface design. NOT for writing implementation code (use frontend-design for that).
Provide clear, personalised explanations of code, concepts, or architecture. Use when the user asks to explain something, wants to understand how code works, asks why something is done a certain way, or says they don't understand something.
| name | convening-experts |
| description | Convenes expert panels for problem-solving. Use when user mentions panel, experts, multiple perspectives, MECE, DMAIC, RAPID, Six Sigma, root cause analysis, strategic decisions, or process improvement. |
| metadata | {"version":"1.0.3"} |
Convene domain experts and methodological specialists to solve problems through multi-round collaborative discussion. Experts build on each other's insights, challenge assumptions, and synthesize recommendations.
For simpler problems requiring multiple viewpoints:
For complex problems requiring collaborative reasoning:
Available expertise spans:
See references/msd-domain-experts.md and references/consulting-frameworks.md for complete role catalog.
Claude loads relevant references based on problem domain.
Claude selects 3-5 experts based on problem characteristics:
Problem type → Primary expert + Supporting experts
## Expert Panel: [Topic]
**Panel Members:**
- [Expert 1 Role]
- [Expert 2 Role]
- [Expert 3 Role]
---
### [Expert 1 Role]
[Independent analysis and recommendations]
### [Expert 2 Role]
[Independent analysis and recommendations]
### [Expert 3 Role]
[Independent analysis and recommendations]
---
## Synthesis
[Integrated recommendations with decision framework]
## Expert Panel: [Topic]
**Panel Members:**
- [Expert 1 Role]
- [Expert 2 Role]
- [Expert 3 Role]
---
## Round 1: Initial Analysis
### [Expert 1 Role]
[Initial perspective]
### [Expert 2 Role]
[Initial perspective]
### [Expert 3 Role]
[Initial perspective]
---
## Round 2: Cross-Examination
### [Expert 1 Role] responds to [Expert 2 Role]
[Builds on or challenges specific points]
### [Expert 2 Role] responds to [Expert 3 Role]
[Integration or disagreement]
### [Expert 3 Role] responds to [Expert 1 Role]
[Synthesis attempt]
---
## Round 3: Convergence (if needed)
[Experts resolve disagreements and converge]
---
## Final Synthesis
[Integrated recommendations, highlighting consensus and productive disagreements]
Domain Experts:
Framework Experts:
Cross-Panel Interaction:
Disagreement Handling:
When panel must recommend action:
RAPID (Bain)
Weighted Decision Matrix
Risk-Benefit Analysis
Apply MSD-specific context automatically:
Technical constraints:
Business context:
Cultural factors:
User: Our new assay is showing high background signal in serum samples
Claude convenes:
- Assay Scientist (primary)
- Systems Thinker (feedback loops)
- Five Whys Facilitator (root cause)
Format: Multi-round (technical nuance requires collaboration)
User: Should we build internal ML infrastructure or use vendor solutions?
Claude convenes:
- Software Engineer (implementation)
- McKinsey Consultant (strategic framing)
- Finance Analyst (cost analysis)
- DevOps Engineer (operational implications)
Format: Single-round → RAPID framework synthesis
User: Manufacturing yield dropped 8% after equipment upgrade
Claude convenes:
- Manufacturing Engineer (primary domain)
- Six Sigma Black Belt (DMAIC)
- Systems Thinker (unintended consequences)
Format: Multi-round (root cause needs collaborative analysis)
Never:
Always:
Is problem complex with multiple valid approaches?
├─ Yes → Expert panel
│ ├─ Spans multiple domains? → Multi-round discussion
│ └─ Needs diverse perspectives? → Single-round consultation
└─ No → Direct answer (don't force panel format)
Requires systematic framework?
├─ Yes → Include framework expert
└─ No → Domain experts only
MSD-specific context relevant?
├─ Yes → Include domain experts, apply MSD constraints
└─ No → Generic consulting approach
Good panel:
Poor panel: