Panel debate skill

Simulates expert panel discussions. Built using the Agent Skills spec: https://agentskills.io/specification

Install

npx -y skills add wyattowalsh/panel-debate-skill

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

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.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Hosts interactive expert panel discussions on any topic. Dynamically generates diverse master-level expert personas, facilitates structured multi-round debate using Hegelian dialectic patterns, and synthesizes actionable consensus. Useful for exploring complex topics, making architectural decisions, evaluating trade-offs, or seeking diverse expert perspectives on strategic questions.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

6.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Panel Discussion Skill

Generate diverse expert personas, facilitate structured debate, and synthesize actionable recommendations.

Arguments

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

size:N → panel size (3-7, default: auto based on breadth)
depth:X → quick (1 round), standard (2-3), deep (4+)
style:X → collaborative, adversarial, academic
Remaining text → topic

Workflow Progress

Copy and update this checklist as you proceed:

- [ ] Complexity scored (5-15)
- [ ] Experts generated (diversity score ≥60/85)
- [ ] Opening round complete
- [ ] Cross-examination complete
- [ ] Synthesis generated
- [ ] Final report produced

Flow

COMPLEXITY_CHECK → EXPERT_GENERATION → DISCUSSION → SYNTHESIS → REPORT
      ↓                                     ↑
[5-7: Warn+Offer direct answer]      [Multiple rounds]

Complexity Check

Score the topic on 5 dimensions (1-3 each):

Dimension	1 (Low)	2 (Medium)	3 (High)
Stakeholders	Single group	2-3 groups	4+ groups
Trade-offs	Clear winner	1-2 trade-offs	3+ trade-offs
Time horizon	Immediate only	Months	Years
Reversibility	Easily reversed	Partially	Irreversible
Domain breadth	Single domain	2 domains	3+ domains

Total = sum of 5 dimensions (range 5-15)

Score	Action
5-7	Warn: "This may not benefit from panel discussion." Offer [1] Proceed [2] Direct answer
8-11	Standard panel (3-4 experts, 2 rounds)
12-15	Deep panel (5-7 experts, 3+ rounds). Load all reference files.

Expert Generation

Load detailed algorithms: Read references/expert-generation.md

Required archetypes (every panel):

Contrarian - challenges consensus, offers alternatives
Synthesizer - connects perspectives, finds common ground
Specialist - deep domain expertise, grounds discussion

Additional: Optimist, Skeptic, Pragmatist, Theorist

Panel size by breadth:

Narrow (single tech): 3-4 experts
Medium (cross-functional): 4-5 experts
Broad (strategic): 5-7 experts

Diversity score ≥60 required (additive, max 85):

All 3 required archetypes present: +20
No single archetype >30% of panel: +10
4+ distinct archetypes: +10
2+ knowledge domains: +15
Optimist + Skeptic both present: +15
User/external perspective included: +15

Validation: After generating experts, compute diversity score. If <60, regenerate or add experts until threshold met. Do NOT proceed with score <60.

Discussion Phases

Load turn-taking mechanics: Read references/turn-taking.md

Phase 1: Opening (Thesis)

🎤 Expert (Role): "[Initial position, 3-5 sentences]"

Phase 2: Cross-Examination (Antithesis)

Experts challenge and build. Patterns: Question→Response, Claim→Counter-claim, Challenge→Defense.

Contrarian protection: Before any synthesis, ask: "Before we synthesize, [Contrarian], what are we missing?"

Phase 3: Synthesis

Load synthesis patterns: Read references/synthesis-patterns.md

📋 Round N Synthesis:
   • Agreement: [point]
   • Tension: [disagreement]
   • Open question: [needs exploration]

Convergence: End early if all agree or cycling. Extend if major tension unexplored.

Validation: After synthesis, verify no "it depends" statements appear without specifying the context factors it depends on. If found, rewrite with decision criteria.

Output Formats

Load formatting specs: Read references/output-formats.md

Panel Header

╭─ Panel Discussion: [Topic] ────────────────────────────────╮
│ Experts: [Name] ([Role]), [Name] ([Role]), [Name] ([Role]) │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

User Menu

╭───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ [1] Continue  [2] Follow-up  [3] Redirect  [4] Conclude   │
╰───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

Final Report

╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║                    PANEL CONCLUSIONS                       ║
╚═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

## Executive Summary
[1-2 sentences]

## Consensus Points
1. **[Point]**: [Details]

## Key Trade-offs
- Trade-off: [Description]
- Recommendation: [Action]
- Dissent: [If any]

## Actionable Recommendations
### Immediate (Week 1)
### Short-term (Month 1)

## Dissenting Views
### [Expert]: "[Direct quote]"

## Open Questions

Synthesis Rules

Labels: UNANIMOUS | STRONG | MAJORITY | CONTESTED | CONTEXT-DEPENDENT

Weight by confidence x domain relevance:

High confidence + Core domain: 1.0
Medium confidence + Adjacent domain: 0.49
Low confidence + Outside domain: 0.16

Never say: "Both make valid points" or "It depends" without specifying decision factors.

User Commands

Command	Effect
Continue	Next round
Follow-up	Ask panel a question
Redirect	Shift focus
Conclude	Generate report