241 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
241 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
description: "Convene multi-perspective expert panel for analysis and decision-making"
|
||
argument-hint: "Topic or question to analyze"
|
||
allowed-tools: ["Task", "Read", "Write", "Edit", "Grep", "Glob"]
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Panel - Expert Multi-Perspective Analysis
|
||
|
||
Convene a panel with 3 core roles + dynamically recruited specialists who analyze your topic from distinct perspectives and produce a structured decision through an 11-phase protocol.
|
||
|
||
## Usage
|
||
|
||
```bash
|
||
/panel How do we pimp fish
|
||
/panel Should we implement GraphQL or REST for the new API
|
||
/panel Evaluate Chapter 9's horror-erotica effectiveness
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**That's it.** The panel handles everything automatically:
|
||
- The Recruiter analyzes topic and recruits 2-5 specialist agents from available library
|
||
- Assigns specialists with evocative session-specific names
|
||
- Infers goals from topic context
|
||
- Applies consensus decision rule (unanimous for security topics)
|
||
- The Adversary argues against proposals and demands proof of necessity
|
||
- Asha moderates and compiles the decision report
|
||
|
||
## Core Roles (Always Present)
|
||
|
||
**Asha** (Moderator/Facilitator)
|
||
- Manages 11-phase protocol execution
|
||
- Ensures procedural integrity and timebox enforcement
|
||
- Synthesizes final decision report
|
||
- **Question**: "What is the PROCESS?"
|
||
|
||
**The Recruiter** (Workforce Intelligence)
|
||
- Analyzes topic to determine needed expertise
|
||
- Scores available agent library (0-10) for capability match
|
||
- Recruits 2-5 specialist agents with session-specific names
|
||
- Deploys `agent-fabricator` if capability gaps detected
|
||
- **Question**: "Who has CAPABILITY?"
|
||
|
||
**The Adversary** (Opposition & Quality Gate)
|
||
- **Default stance: OPPOSE** - argues against proposals and defends status quo
|
||
- Demands evidence before changing working systems: "Show me user complaints, failure data, metrics"
|
||
- Forces proponents to prove necessity: "The current system works. Prove it doesn't."
|
||
- Prevents premature action and consensus formed without data
|
||
- **Question**: "Why should we do this at all?"
|
||
|
||
## Dynamic Panelists (Recruited Per Topic)
|
||
|
||
The Recruiter assigns agents from `.claude/agents/*.md` with **evocative session-specific names** based on topic context.
|
||
|
||
**Examples by Topic Type**:
|
||
|
||
**Creative Writing Panel** (Callum Chapter 9 evaluation):
|
||
- `prose-analysis` → **"The Editor"** (craft assessment)
|
||
- `intimacy-designer` → **"The Architect of Dread"** (genre mechanics)
|
||
- `narrative-architect` → **"The Structuralist"** (story coherence)
|
||
- `character-developer` → **"The Psychologist"** (character authenticity)
|
||
|
||
**Technical Architecture Panel** (GraphQL vs REST):
|
||
- `research-assistant` → **"The Evidence Gatherer"** (source validation)
|
||
- `architect` → **"The Systems Designer"** (architecture patterns)
|
||
- `ml-engineer` → **"The Model Capability Analyst"** (performance analysis)
|
||
|
||
**Culinary Innovation Panel** (How do we pimp fish):
|
||
- `research-assistant` → **"The Culinary Historian"** (technique research)
|
||
- `trend-analyst` → **"The Flavor Prophet"** (emerging patterns)
|
||
- `creative-director` → **"The Presentation Architect"** (plating design)
|
||
|
||
**Session-Specific Naming Convention**:
|
||
- **Agent role** describes what it does (e.g., `prose-analysis`)
|
||
- **Session name** describes who it becomes for this panel (e.g., "The Editor")
|
||
- Names should be evocative, contextual, and domain-appropriate
|
||
|
||
## 11-Phase Protocol
|
||
|
||
**Phase -1: Topic Analysis & Workforce Recruitment** (The Recruiter)
|
||
- Analyze topic domain (technical, creative, research-heavy, security-critical)
|
||
- Determine required expertise areas (2-5 domains typical)
|
||
- Search agent library systematically (`.claude/agents/*.md`)
|
||
- Score agents 0-10 for topic capability match:
|
||
* 10: Perfect specialist match
|
||
* 7-9: Strong capabilities alignment
|
||
* 4-6: Partial match, can handle with coordination
|
||
* 1-3: Poor match, inefficient
|
||
* 0: No coverage, gap identified
|
||
- Assign specialists with session-specific names (e.g., `prose-analysis` → "The Editor")
|
||
- Deploy `agent-fabricator` if gaps detected (no agent scores >4)
|
||
- Set decision rule (consensus default, unanimous for security)
|
||
- Infer primary goals from topic context
|
||
|
||
**Phase 0: Goal Clarification** (Asha)
|
||
- Request clarification if topic is ambiguous or underspecified
|
||
- Formalize refined topic statement
|
||
- Skip if topic is already well-specified
|
||
|
||
**Phase 1: Framing** (Asha)
|
||
- State topic, inferred goals, constraints, decision rule
|
||
- Introduce panel composition:
|
||
* Core roles (Asha, Recruiter, Adversary)
|
||
* Recruited specialists with session names
|
||
- Explain recruitment rationale (why these specialists for this topic)
|
||
- Establish complete panel composition before Initial Positions
|
||
|
||
**Phase 2: Infrastructure Check** (Asha)
|
||
- Compare proposals against existing assets to avoid duplication:
|
||
* Memory files (workflowProtocols.md, activeContext.md)
|
||
* Commands (/panel, /save, /notes, /validate-vault)
|
||
* Agents (research-assistant, narrator, etc.)
|
||
- Output "Existing Infrastructure Comparison"
|
||
- Redirect to enhancement if duplicative
|
||
|
||
**Phase 3: Initial Positions** (All Panelists)
|
||
- Each specialist (via recruited agent) gathers information and analyzes from their domain
|
||
- The Adversary takes opposition stance: "DON'T do this because..." and demands proof
|
||
- Synthesize into 5-bullet brief: Position, Evidence, Risks, Unknowns, Recommendation
|
||
- Present findings with citations
|
||
|
||
**Phase 4: Cross-Examination** (The Adversary-led)
|
||
- The Adversary challenges assumptions, finds contradictions and failure modes
|
||
- Specialists respond from their domain perspectives
|
||
- Recruiter may assign additional agents if challenges reveal capability gaps
|
||
|
||
**Phase 5: Research Gate** (Asha)
|
||
- If evidence gaps block decisions, authorize additional research
|
||
- Direct specialists to run targeted queries using assigned agents
|
||
- Recruiter may assign additional specialized agents if insufficient
|
||
- Enforce Confidence Scoring: Relevance, Completeness, Confidence Score
|
||
- Thresholds: <0.6 Insufficient | 0.6–0.79 Preliminary | ≥0.8 High confidence
|
||
|
||
**Phase 6: Reflection Round** (All Panelists)
|
||
- Review Cross-Examination arguments and Research Gate findings
|
||
- Revise Initial Positions if persuaded by evidence or challenges
|
||
- Submit updated briefs acknowledging what changed and why
|
||
- Asha identifies convergence or remaining disagreements
|
||
|
||
**Phase 7: Synthesis** (Recruited Architect or Asha)
|
||
- Analyze updated briefs and structure viable options with tradeoffs
|
||
- Articulate decision pathways and implications
|
||
- If complex synthesis needed, Recruiter may assign architecture specialist
|
||
|
||
**Phase 8: Decision** (Asha)
|
||
- Apply decision rule (consensus/unanimous based on topic)
|
||
- Record dissent and rationale if present
|
||
- List Next Steps with owners, deliverables, due dates
|
||
|
||
## Decision Report (Fixed Output)
|
||
|
||
Every panel produces a structured decision report:
|
||
|
||
- **Topic** (including Phase 0 clarifications if applicable)
|
||
- **Inferred Goals** (derived from topic analysis)
|
||
- **Decision Rule** (consensus or unanimous)
|
||
- **Panel Composition**:
|
||
* Core Roles (Asha, Recruiter, Adversary)
|
||
* Recruited Specialists (agent → session name mapping with scores)
|
||
* Recruitment Rationale (why these specialists for this topic)
|
||
- **Existing Infrastructure Comparison** (Phase 2 findings)
|
||
- **Expert Briefs** (Phase 3 Initial Positions with agent-gathered evidence)
|
||
- **Cross-Examination Findings** (Phase 4 challenges and responses)
|
||
- **Research Findings** (Phase 5 sources, if Research Gate activated)
|
||
- **Confidence Summary** (Relevance, Completeness, Score, Threshold)
|
||
- **Reflection Round Summary** (Phase 6 revised positions, convergence)
|
||
- **Synthesis** (Phase 7 options/tradeoffs)
|
||
- **Decision** (Phase 8 final determination)
|
||
- **Next Steps** (actionable items with ownership)
|
||
|
||
## Dynamic Agent Recruitment Architecture
|
||
|
||
**Core Roles vs Recruited Specialists**:
|
||
- **Core Roles** = Persistent panel infrastructure (Asha, Recruiter, Adversary)
|
||
- **Recruited Specialists** = Topic-specific experts from agent library with session names
|
||
|
||
**Recruitment Flow**:
|
||
1. **Phase -1**: Recruiter analyzes topic → determines expertise needs → scores agents → assigns with session names
|
||
2. **Phase 3**: Specialists deploy assigned agents for research and analysis
|
||
3. **Phase 4-5**: Recruiter may assign additional agents if gaps detected
|
||
4. **Phase 7**: Recruiter may assign architecture specialist for complex synthesis
|
||
|
||
**Session-Specific Naming**:
|
||
- Same agent becomes different "character" depending on context
|
||
- `prose-analysis` → "The Editor" (creative), "The Code Reviewer" (technical), "The Stylist" (marketing)
|
||
- `research-assistant` → "The Archivist" (historical), "The Evidence Gatherer" (legal), "The Data Scout" (analytics)
|
||
- Names should reflect domain context and analytical role
|
||
|
||
**Gap Detection & Agent Creation**:
|
||
If no agent scores >4 for required capability → Recruiter deploys `agent-fabricator` to create new specialized agent during Phase -1.
|
||
|
||
## Character Files
|
||
|
||
Core roles have documented profiles in `plugins/panel/docs/characters/`:
|
||
- **Asha.md** - Moderator/Facilitator
|
||
- **The Recruiter.md** - Workforce Intelligence
|
||
- **The Adversary.md** - Opposition & Quality Gate
|
||
|
||
Recruited specialists are documented in `.claude/agents/*.md` (agent count varies by host project).
|
||
|
||
## Logging
|
||
|
||
Panel transcripts are automatically saved to:
|
||
```
|
||
Work/meetings/YYYY-MM-DD--panel--<slug>.md
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Suggested frontmatter:
|
||
```yaml
|
||
---
|
||
date: YYYY-MM-DD
|
||
topic: "<one-line topic>"
|
||
mode: "inworld|outworld"
|
||
decision_rule: "consensus|unanimous"
|
||
experts: ["moderator", "adversary", "recruited-agent-1", "recruited-agent-2", ...]
|
||
---
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## Notes
|
||
|
||
- **Dynamic recruitment**: No static panelists—Recruiter assigns 2-5 specialists per topic
|
||
- **Session-specific names**: Agents given evocative contextual names for panel depth
|
||
- **Evidence standards**: Use markers where appropriate: [Inference], [Speculation], [Unverified]
|
||
- **Optional phases**: Skip Phase 0 if topic well-specified, skip Phase 6 for simple decisions
|
||
- **Tool segregation**: Memory/Tools via filesystem; Vault via Obsidian tools; BookStack via MCP
|
||
- **Core role consistency**: Asha, Recruiter, Adversary always present; specialists vary by topic
|
||
|
||
## Pattern Implementation
|
||
|
||
Based on CSIRO Agent Design Patterns (Liu et al. 2025):
|
||
- **Passive Goal Creator** (Phase 0): Clarifies ambiguous topics
|
||
- **Role-Based Cooperation**: Core roles with hierarchical workflow
|
||
- **Debate-Based Cooperation**: Cross-Examination phase enables argument exchange
|
||
- **Self-Reflection**: Reflection Round allows position revision
|
||
- **Cross-Reflection**: Specialists review each other's arguments
|
||
- **Human Reflection**: Decision Report enables user contestability
|
||
|
||
**Reference**: Liu et al. (2025). "Agent design pattern catalogue: A collection of architectural patterns for foundation model based agents." *The Journal of Systems and Software* 220, 112278.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
**ARGUMENTS**: Free-form topic text (everything after `/panel` is the topic)
|