Use when you need comprehensive, multi-perspective analysis of a decision or idea — a full Team of Rivals assessment. Runs all four advisors independently (visionary, skeptic, operator, ethicist), then synthesizes their insights into a unified recommendation with areas of agreement, disagreement, and a risk-adjusted verdict.
Use when you need comprehensive, multi-perspective analysis of a decision or idea — a full Team of Rivals assessment. Runs all four advisors independently (visionary, skeptic, operator, ethicist), then synthesizes their insights into a unified recommendation with areas of agreement, disagreement, and a risk-adjusted verdict.
license
MIT
disable-model-invocation
true
argument-hint
<idea or decision to analyze>
allowed-tools
Agent Skill
metadata
{"author":"Backchain","version":"2.1.0"}
Advisory Panel: Comprehensive Decision Analysis
You will analyze the following concept through four independent advisory perspectives using subagents for true isolation, then synthesize their insights into a unified recommendation.
Input
Decision/Idea to Analyze: $ARGUMENTS
Workflow Checklist
Build context briefing from conversation (decision, background, constraints, stakeholders, prior analysis) — thorough enough that an advisor with no conversation history can produce a well-informed analysis
Launch all 4 advisor subagents in parallel in a single message — each invokes its skill via Skill("advisor-visionary", args: "<context briefing>") etc. — each runs in isolated context, producing structured output per its Output Format (200-400 words)
Collect all 4 analyses before proceeding
Identify areas of agreement
Identify areas of disagreement
Extract critical callouts
Generate risk-adjusted recommendation
Synthesis Detail
After all four subagents return their results, synthesize the findings:
Areas of Agreement
List insights where 3 or more advisors converge on the same conclusion, recommendation, or concern. For each area:
State the common finding
Note which advisors agree (by name)
Include the strength of consensus (e.g., "All four advisors" vs "Three advisors")
Areas of Disagreement
List direct conflicts or tensions between advisors. For each disagreement:
State the conflicting positions clearly
Identify which advisors hold each position
Explain the root cause of the disagreement (different priorities, risk models, timeframes, etc.)
Critical Callouts
One-line highlight from each advisor capturing their most important unique insight:
Visionary Advisor: [single most transformative opportunity or constraint challenge]
Skeptic Advisor: [single most critical risk or evidence gap]
Operator Advisor: [single most critical execution concern or resource constraint]
Ethicist Advisor: [single most important stakeholder impact or ethical consideration]
Risk-Adjusted Recommendation
Provide a final verdict in this exact format:
Confidence Level: [HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW]
Key Conditions:
[List 2-4 must-satisfy conditions, or state "N/A"]
Primary Risk:
[Single sentence describing the most critical risk if proceeding]
Recommended Next Step:
[Single concrete action to take immediately]
Rationale:
[2-3 sentences explaining how you weighed the four perspectives to reach this verdict]
Output Format
Your complete output should follow this structure:
# Advisory Panel: [Brief Decision Title]
## Visionary Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]
## Skeptic Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]
## Operator Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]
## Ethicist Advisor Analysis
[Subagent result — complete structured output]
---
# Synthesis
## Areas of Agreement
[As specified above]
## Areas of Disagreement
[As specified above]
## Critical Callouts
[As specified above]
## Risk-Adjusted Recommendation
[As specified above]
Important Notes
Skill loading: Each subagent invokes its advisor skill via the Skill tool — do not read or pass SKILL.md content directly
Context briefing: Construct a thorough briefing from the conversation so each advisor has the full decision context
True isolation: Each advisor runs as a separate subagent with its own context window — no cross-contamination between perspectives
Parallel execution: All four subagents launch simultaneously for efficiency
Synthesis integrity: Base the synthesis only on what the advisors actually returned
Verdict precision: The final recommendation must reflect the balance of all four perspectives
Synthesis length: The synthesis should be 300-500 words. Focus on genuine tensions and agreements, not a rote summary of each advisor.
