Virtual panel
Simulate a high-value virtual panel discussion between 4 distinct fictional characters (Genius, Eccentric, Beginner, and one of Optimist/Worrier selected for fit) on any topic the user provides. The discussion uses critical thinking, active debate, and deep/lateral exploration — never mere agreement — and ends with structured meeting minutes written from the perspective of a "genius blogger". Use this skill whenever the user asks for a panel discussion, brainstorm session with characters, multi-perspective debate, virtual meeting, fictional roundtable, creative ideation session, or says anything like "panel discussion", "debate this topic", "run a meeting on", "brainstorm with characters", or "explore this from multiple angles". Also trigger when a user pastes a topic and wants rich, multi-voice analysis that goes far deeper than a standard essay or bullet list. Minimum output length is 10,000 characters.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add koji/waza --skill virtual-panelAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
8.1 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Virtual Panel Discussion Skill
Generate an immersive, critically rich fictional panel discussion on a user-supplied topic, followed by expert-quality structured meeting minutes.
Step 1 — Identify the Topic
Extract the topic from the user's message. If it is vague or missing, ask:
"What topic would you like the panel to discuss?"
Accept the topic as-is once provided. Do not sanitize or narrow it without asking.
Step 2 — Cast the Panel (4 Characters)
Create exactly 4 characters drawn from this pool. Always include Genius and Eccentric. For the remaining two, choose Beginner plus whichever of Optimist / Worrier fits the topic best (or include both if a 4-person cast naturally fits).
Character Archetypes
| Archetype | Core Trait | Communication Style | Typical Move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genius | Cross-domain pattern recognition, first-principles thinking | Dense, precise, occasionally blunt | Reframes the whole question |
| Eccentric | Unconventional, contrarian, willing to sound absurd | Metaphor-heavy, provocative | Lateral leaps, breaks assumptions |
| Beginner | Naïve but sincere; asks "dumb" questions that expose hidden complexity | Simple language, honest confusion | Forces experts to clarify fundamentals |
| Optimist | Energetic, solution-focused; sees opportunity in every problem | Enthusiastic, forward-looking | Proposes bold action |
| Worrier | Risk-aware, detail-obsessed, spots failure modes others miss | Cautious, hedged, cites edge cases | Stress-tests every proposal |
Character Sheet (write one per character before the discussion begins):
Name: [Invented name that reflects personality]
Background: [2–3 sentences: expertise, life experience, quirks]
Motivation: [What drives them in this discussion?]
Verbal tic / Signature phrase: [Something memorable]
Blind spot: [One genuine weakness in their worldview]
Step 3 — Run the Discussion
Ground Rules (enforce throughout)
- No pure agreement. Every contribution must either deepen (drill into a sub-question) or expand (branch to a related dimension). Affirmations like "Great point!" without substance are forbidden.
- Claim → Evidence → Implication. Each speaker must state what they believe, why, and what follows if true.
- Rebuttal requires an alternative. Disagreement must come with a counter-proposal.
- Beginner asks at least one clarifying question per major topic shift that forces the experts to articulate assumptions they've been taking for granted.
- Minimum length: 10,000 characters in the discussion section alone. Aim for depth over breadth; a single productive disagreement explored for 3,000 characters beats five surface exchanges.
Discussion Structure
Run the discussion in four phases. Transition between phases naturally in dialogue — do not use visible phase headers inside the character dialogue:
Phase 1 — Framing & First Principles (~20% of discussion)
- Each character states their initial take on the topic.
- Genius or Eccentric immediately challenges a hidden assumption in someone else's framing.
- Beginner surfaces the most basic "why does this matter?" question.
Phase 2 — Deep Dive (~40% of discussion)
- Pick the sharpest point of disagreement from Phase 1 and drill into it.
- Introduce evidence, analogies, historical parallels, or thought experiments.
- At least one character must take a position that makes another character visibly uncomfortable.
Phase 3 — Lateral Expansion (~25% of discussion)
- Eccentric pivots to an unexpected adjacent domain that recontextualizes the whole debate.
- The panel either embraces or resists this pivot — both are valid; the disagreement is the value.
- Beginner connects the new framing back to practical, everyday implications.
Phase 4 — Synthesis Attempt & Open Questions (~15% of discussion)
- Each character offers their revised position after the discussion.
- No artificial consensus. Genuine remaining disagreements are preserved and named.
- End with 3–5 open questions the panel couldn't answer — these become raw material for the minutes.
Dialogue Format
**[Character Name]:** [Speech — at least 2–4 sentences per turn, often much longer for
complex arguments. Use italics for internal aside or stage direction if needed.]
Keep speaker turns varied in length. Long arguments followed by short, sharp rebuttals create natural rhythm.
Step 4 — Write the Meeting Minutes
After the discussion, add a clear section break, then write the minutes from the perspective of a "genius blogger": someone who synthesizes complex material into elegant, insightful prose that is also accessible to a non-expert reader.
Minutes Structure
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
MEETING MINUTES — [Topic in Title Case]
Prepared by: [Blogger persona name, e.g. "The Lucid Observer"]
Date: [Today's date]
Participants: [List all 4 characters with one-line descriptor]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
## Executive Summary (3–5 sentences)
The single most important insight from this discussion and why it matters.
## Key Arguments & Positions
For each major argument raised, format as:
- **Claim:** One sentence.
- **Best supporting reasoning:** 2–3 sentences.
- **Strongest counterargument:** 1–2 sentences.
- **Current status:** Resolved / Contested / Tabled
## Moments of Breakthrough
2–4 moments where the discussion produced a genuinely novel idea or reframe.
Write each as a short narrative paragraph ("When X challenged Y with Z, it revealed…").
## Points of Irresolvable Disagreement
Name the genuine fault lines. Don't paper over them. Explain why they're hard.
## Action Items / Follow-up Questions
Numbered list of concrete next steps or research questions.
## Closing Reflection (1 paragraph)
The blogger's personal take on what this discussion revealed about the topic — and about
how humans reason together.
Quality Checklist (self-review before outputting)
- All 4 character sheets written with name, background, motivation, verbal tic, blind spot
- Discussion exceeds 10,000 characters
- No turn is pure agreement without substantive addition
- At least 3 genuine disagreements with alternatives offered
- Beginner asked at least 2 clarifying questions that exposed hidden assumptions
- Eccentric made at least 1 surprising lateral connection
- Minutes cover all four structural sections
- Open questions in minutes are genuinely unresolved (not rhetorical)
Tone & Accessibility
Write the dialogue so that a motivated non-expert can follow it. When Genius or Eccentric uses jargon, Beginner (or another character) asks for clarification — and the answer must be in plain language. The goal: a reader with no background in the topic should finish the discussion feeling like they've thought more clearly about it, not more confused.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.