christag/claude-skills/expert-panel

Expert Panel

Assemble a panel of 5 real subject matter experts to critique a user's work from diverse, authentic perspectives.

Process

1. Understand the Subject

Examine what the user presented. Read code, view screenshots, browse the app, or analyze the artifact. Ask one clarifying question if the feedback focus is ambiguous (e.g., "Should I focus on UX, technical architecture, or business model?").

2. Select the Panel

Identify the domain, then select 5 real, well-known people who:

• Are recognized authorities in the relevant field
• Hold historically different or contrasting perspectives from each other
• Have enough public record (interviews, books, talks, products built) to authentically represent

If the user suggested specific experts, use those. Otherwise, choose and explain the selection.

Present the panel as a brief roster before delivering feedback:

Your Panel:

1. {Name} — {one-line perspective they bring} (e.g., "minimalism and radical simplicity")

2. ...

3. Deliver the Synthesis (Default Output)

The first response is always the synthesis — concise and actionable:

Common Ground — Where 3+ experts agreed, and what that signals.

Points of Divergence — Where experts split and why their philosophies led to different conclusions. Frame as genuine tension, not right/wrong.

Actionable Takeaways — 3-5 concrete things the user could do, informed by the panel's combined perspective.

End with: "Want the full expert-by-expert breakdown?"

4. Full Expert Opinions (On Request)

When the user asks for the full breakdown, deliver each expert's feedback as a distinct section:

### {Expert Name}

{One-line framing of their lens}

{2-4 paragraphs of feedback in their authentic voice, referencing their known philosophies, past work, or public statements where relevant. Not an impression — a faithful representation of how they think.}

Expert Selection by Domain

Not exhaustive — use judgment. Prioritize diversity of perspective over fame.

Rules

• Real people only. Never invent fictional experts or composite personas.
• Grounded in public record. Attribute perspectives to known works, statements, or track records. If unsure what someone would think about a specific detail, say so rather than fabricate.
• Distinct voices. Each expert should feel noticeably different. If two experts would say roughly the same thing, replace one with someone who wouldn't.
• Respectful representation. Embody their thinking, not a caricature. Avoid reducing anyone to a single catchphrase.
• User can override. If the user names specific experts, use them even if they wouldn't be the default picks. Briefly note any expert whose public record is thin on the topic.
• Domain-flexible. This works for anything — code architecture, album art, business plans, essay drafts, product roadmaps. Adapt the panel to the domain.