Expert Panel Deliberation
Structured multi-expert evaluation, deliberation, and consensus building.
Purpose
Provide consistent, high-quality multi-perspective analysis by:
- •Instantiating domain-appropriate expert panels
- •Executing structured deliberation protocols
- •Resolving conflicts between viewpoints
- •Building weighted consensus
- •Documenting reasoning and dissent
When to Use
Ideal for:
- •Decisions requiring multiple perspectives
- •Evaluating options with tradeoffs
- •Complex topics with no single right answer
- •Building confidence through diverse viewpoints
Avoid when:
- •Simple factual questions
- •Time-critical decisions needing speed
- •Single-domain technical questions
Checkpoints
This skill uses interactive checkpoints (see references/checkpoints.yaml) to resolve ambiguity:
- •domain_context — When domain not specified
- •output_format_selection — When output format not specified
- •deliberation_depth_selection — When depth could vary based on stakes
- •panel_composition — When archetype selection is ambiguous
- •panel_size_adjustment — When specified size conflicts with recommended
- •conflict_resolution_approach — When unresolved conflicts need user input
- •weighting_approach — When consensus weighting is ambiguous
- •dissent_documentation — When minority view significance is unclear
Workflow
Step 1: Define Panel Requirements
Determine what evaluation is needed:
- •Subject: What is being evaluated?
- •Goal: What should the evaluation determine?
- •Panel size: 3-8 experts (default: 5)
- •Output format: findings | scores | ranking | recommendation
CHECKPOINT: domain_context
- •If domain not specified and not inferable from subject: AskUserQuestion
- •Options: Architecture, Product, Security, Operations, Business, Custom
- •Example: "What domain is this evaluation for?"
CHECKPOINT: output_format_selection
- •If output format not specified: AskUserQuestion
- •Options: Findings, Scores, Ranking, Recommendation
- •Example: "What output format would be most useful?"
CHECKPOINT: deliberation_depth_selection
- •If stakes unclear and depth not specified: AskUserQuestion
- •Options: Quick, Standard, Deep
- •Example: "How thorough should the deliberation be?"
Step 2: Assemble Expert Panel
Select from archetypes based on domain:
| Archetype | Focus | Include When |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Authority | Architecture, implementation | Technical subjects |
| Quality Guardian | Standards, testing | Quality assessment |
| User Advocate | Experience, usability | User-facing topics |
| Risk Specialist | Failures, compliance | Risk assessment |
| Efficiency Expert | Cost, automation | Resource decisions |
| Domain Specialist | Best practices | Domain-specific topics |
| Challenger | Questioning assumptions | Always (at least 1) |
Panel composition rules:
- •Minimum 3 experts for meaningful deliberation
- •Maximum 8 experts (diminishing returns beyond)
- •Always include at least one challenger perspective
- •Balance technical and business viewpoints
CHECKPOINT: panel_composition
- •If subject matches multiple domains or custom panel needed: AskUserQuestion
- •Options: Architecture panel, Product panel, Security panel, Custom selection
- •Example: "Which expert panel composition fits best?"
CHECKPOINT: panel_size_adjustment
- •If user-specified size differs significantly from recommended: AskUserQuestion
- •Example: "You specified 3 experts, but this topic typically benefits from 5. Which size?"
Step 3: Execute Individual Evaluation
For each expert:
- •Adopt perspective — Review role, expertise, concerns
- •Evaluate subject — Answer from expert's viewpoint
- •Score (if applicable) — Rate relevant dimensions
- •Document — Key findings, concerns, recommendations
Step 4: Execute Deliberation
Round 1: Finding Presentation
- •Each expert presents top findings
- •No debate yet; just surface perspectives
Round 2: Cross-Examination
- •Experts question each other's findings
- •Surface disagreements and gaps
Round 3: Conflict Resolution
- •Address disagreements systematically
- •Document resolved vs. unresolved conflicts
Round 4: Consensus Building
- •Identify areas of agreement
- •Weight by expert influence
- •Synthesize combined view
CHECKPOINT: conflict_resolution_approach
- •If significant conflicts remain unresolved: AskUserQuestion
- •Options: Weight by domain, Weight by evidence, Document both, Escalate to user
- •Example: "Technical Authority and User Advocate disagree. How should we resolve?"
CHECKPOINT: weighting_approach
- •If weighting algorithm not specified and experts have unequal relevance: AskUserQuestion
- •Options: Equal weight, Domain relevance, Confidence-adjusted, Evidence-based
- •Example: "How should expert perspectives be weighted?"
Step 5: Generate Output
Format based on requested output type.
CHECKPOINT: dissent_documentation
- •If minority views exist and significance unclear: AskUserQuestion
- •Options: Document prominently, Document briefly, Omit
- •Example: "Risk Specialist disagrees with consensus. How should we document this?"
Output Format
markdown
## Expert Panel Analysis: [Subject] ### Panel Composition - **[Expert 1 Role]:** [brief expertise] - **[Expert 2 Role]:** [brief expertise] ... ### Key Findings **Consensus Views:** 1. [Finding agreed by most/all experts] (Confidence: HIGH/MED/LOW) 2. [Finding agreed by most/all experts] (Confidence: HIGH/MED/LOW) **Divergent Views:** - [Expert] believes [X] while [Expert] believes [Y] - Resolution: [how addressed or "unresolved"] ### Scores (if applicable) | Dimension | Score | Confidence | |-----------|-------|------------| | [dim] | [X/10] | [H/M/L] | ### Recommendations 1. [Primary recommendation] 2. [Secondary recommendation] ### Dissent Record [Any unresolved disagreements and minority views]
Quality Gates
- • All requested experts contributed
- • Each expert answered from their perspective
- • Conflicts identified and addressed
- • Weights properly applied
- • Consensus clearly stated
- • Dissent documented if present
- • Confidence levels assigned
- • All applicable checkpoints evaluated (ambiguity resolved via AskUserQuestion)
Parameters
| Parameter | Default | Options |
|---|---|---|
panel_size | 5 | 3-8 |
deliberation_depth | standard | quick, standard, deep |
output_format | findings | findings, scores, ranking, recommendation |
include_challenger | true | true, false |
Examples
Example 1: Architecture Decision User: Analyze our microservices vs monolith decision with an expert panel Panel: Technical Authority, Quality Guardian, Risk Specialist, Efficiency Expert, Challenger [Deliberation proceeds with each expert evaluating from their perspective]
Example 2: Feature Prioritization User: Get expert perspectives on which features to build next quarter Panel: User Advocate, Domain Specialist, Technical Authority, Efficiency Expert, Challenger [Deliberation with scoring output]