Host Panel

Surface real tensions, frameworks, and disagreements through simulated expert

discourse — not theatrical roleplay.

This panel explores a complex topic from multiple angles — surfacing frameworks

and genuine disagreements, not producing consensus or truth.

Invocation:

/host-panel "topic" [format] [num-experts]

Format

Purpose

Best for

roundtable

Open multi-perspectival exploration

Broad topics, brainstorming, mapping a field

oxford

Binary debate with formal sides

Policy decisions, testing propositions

socratic

Deep inquiry through questioning

Conceptual analysis, definitional disputes

Defaults:

roundtable format, 4 experts.

Expert range:

2-6. For best persona maintenance quality, prefer 4-5 experts; at 6,

maintenance becomes difficult.

To add a format: add its phase guide to

./references/formats.md

and update the format

table and auto-selection logic above.

1. Argument Parsing & Topic Diagnostic

Parsing

Parse

$ARGUMENTS

a quoted string is the topic (required), an integer 2-6 is expert count, a keyword ( roundtable / oxford / socratic ) is format. Order of count and format does not matter. Defaults: roundtable, 4 experts. Format-count notes: Oxford with 2 experts runs as direct proposition-vs-opposition without swing or floor questions. Oxford with 3 designates one swing per formats.md. Socratic with 2 runs as paired inquiry — both panelists question each other under moderator guidance. If $ARGUMENTS is empty, present this example gallery and ask the user to choose or provide their own:

Domain

Topic

Format

1

Technology

"Should foundation model weights be open-sourced?"

oxford

2

Philosophy

"What obligations do current generations owe the far future?"

socratic

3

Policy

"How should cities redesign transit for remote-work patterns?"

roundtable

4

Science

"Is the replication crisis a crisis of method or incentives?"

roundtable

For 2 experts, the panel becomes a structured dialogue. Alternate direct engagement

between the two participants. Omit moderator interjections — they interrupt the flow

when only two voices are present.

Topic Suitability Diagnostic

Before proceeding, evaluate the topic:

Signal

Action

Pause?

Settled science

Reframe toward open question

Yes

Too broad

Suggest narrowing with specific example

Yes

Too narrow for expert count

Reduce panel or suggest broadening

Yes

Highly specialized

Flag research grounding as critical

No — extra rigor

Asymmetric evidence

Reframe around genuine tensions within consensus

No — reframe

Casual / experiential

Use practitioners and cultural commentators — same rigor, matched register

No — match register

Format Auto-Selection

If the user omitted format, select based on topic structure:

Binary proposition ("Should X...", "Is Y better than Z...") ->

oxford

Open exploration ("What are the implications of...", "How should we think about...") ->

roundtable

Deep conceptual inquiry ("What does X mean?", "Is Y coherent?") ->

socratic

State the choice briefly: "Using roundtable — this topic benefits from open exchange

rather than binary debate."

2. Topic Analysis & Research Grounding

This is the critical step that determines panel quality. Complete it BEFORE generating

any personas. Rushed or skipped research grounding produces shallow panels.

Terrain Mapping

Identify:

Core disciplines

this topic spans (e.g., economics, ethics, computer science,

public health)

Key tensions

technical vs. ethical, theory vs. practice, empirical vs. normative,

short-term vs. long-term, individual vs. systemic, efficiency vs. equity

Intellectual traditions

with substantive positions on this topic — not generic

"perspectives" but actual schools of thought with methodological commitments

(e.g., capabilities approach vs. revealed preference theory, not "some people

think X and others think Y")

What is specifically contested

which evidence is disputed, which frameworks

are in tension, which assumptions are not shared across traditions

Research Grounding

Use WebSearch to find 3-5 recent, relevant sources. Prioritize:

Academic papers (.edu, arxiv.org)

Substantive analyses from established publications

Real debates between named scholars

Meta-analyses or literature reviews that map the field

If WebSearch is unavailable or returns thin results, draw on training knowledge and

flag this explicitly: "Based on training knowledge — not verified against current

literature."

If the topic has a live academic debate, identify actual participants and positions.

Real names, real works, real disagreements.

Citation integrity rules:

Cite specific works when confident: "As Sen argues in

Development as Freedom

(1999)..."

When uncertain about specifics, reference the tradition or framework: "drawing on

the capabilities approach"

NEVER fabricate titles, authors, years, or journal names. If unsure, say "a study

in this tradition found..." rather than inventing a citation

Outputs (Show Before Proceeding)

Present to the user:

Topic map

key tensions, disciplines involved, the core question being addressed

Research brief

key works found, active debates, real scholarly positions

Suggested panel composition

(brief): the intellectual traditions that should be

represented based on the tensions identified

By default, produce the complete panel in a single response (topic map through

synthesis). Pause for user input only when the topic diagnostic flagged an issue (too

broad, too narrow, settled science) or when the topic is ambiguous enough that

reframing is likely. The panel should teach the user something they did not already

know.

3. Persona Generation

Build personas that maximally cover the tensions identified in the topic map. Every

major tension should have at least one vocal advocate on each side.

Required Attributes Per Panelist

For each panelist, specify:

Name and credentials

institutional affiliation, career stage

Domain expertise

— specific, not generic. "Computational neuroscientist studying

emergent properties in artificial neural networks" NOT "AI researcher." "Labor

economist specializing in automation displacement in manufacturing" NOT "economist."

Intellectual tradition

— operationalized: how does this tradition shape their

reasoning? What counts as evidence for them? What counts as a good explanation?

What are their methodological commitments?

Argumentative style

data-driven, theoretical, historical, pragmatic,

dialectical, narrative

Known blind spots

— specific: "tends to underweight distributional effects when

analyzing aggregate productivity gains" NOT "has biases"

Diversity Requirements

Full requirements (4+ experts):

No two panelists from the same intellectual tradition

At least one contrarian — someone whose position will be genuinely uncomfortable

for the room, not merely mildly skeptical

At least one bridge figure who connects two disciplines (e.g., a bioethicist

bridges biology and philosophy; a computational linguist bridges CS and linguistics)

Mix of career stages: emeritus professor, mid-career, early-career researcher.

Different career stages produce different risk tolerances and different relationships

to established wisdom

Scaled for smaller panels:

2 experts: ensure distinct traditions; prefer at least one bridge figure when the

topic spans multiple disciplines (not required for single-discipline topics)

3 experts: ensure distinct traditions, at least one contrarian or bridge figure,

at least two different career stages

Anti-Clustering Check

If two panelists share the same intellectual tradition, methodology, AND likely

conclusions on the core tensions — replace one. Panels with clusters produce the

illusion of diversity without the substance.

Consult

./references/archetypes.md

if the panel requires personas from 2+ distinct

domains or if the topic falls outside well-known fields. Adapt archetypes to the

specific topic rather than copying them verbatim.

When the topic has active scholarly debates, model panelists on real researchers'

published positions (not their personal lives). Use composites when needed: "a

researcher in the tradition of Amartya Sen's capabilities approach" is more

grounded than an invented persona with no intellectual anchor.

Announcement

Announce panelists with full credentials at the start of the panel. Give the user a

clear sense of who is in the room and why each voice was selected.

Quality Calibration Example

Target this level of specificity and intellectual depth:

Dr. Amara Osei (Development Economics, Oxford — capabilities approach):

Your proposal to use GDP growth as the primary metric repeats the same error

Rostow made with modernization theory. Sen demonstrated in *Development as

Freedom* that capability deprivation persists in high-growth economies. The

question isn't whether AI increases output — it's whether it expands substantive

freedoms for the least advantaged.

*[Moderator]: Dr. Osei raises a fundamental measurement question. Dr. Chen,

how do you respond to the claim that GDP masks distributional effects?*

Every panelist must speak at this level — citing specific works, engaging specific

claims, reasoning from their stated tradition.

4. Moderator Standing Orders

These behaviors apply continuously throughout all discussion phases. Claude acts as

the moderator.

Persona Integrity

(before each panelist speaks)

Before each panelist speaks, execute this internal reasoning pipeline (silent — do

not display any of these steps):

Recall

What are this panelist's core commitments and what have they

argued so far?

Analyze

What have other panelists actually claimed? Consider arguments

by substance, not by who said them — this forces engagement with ideas,

not social dynamics.

Evaluate

Which claims would this panelist's tradition challenge, and on

what grounds?

Respond

Formulate a response grounded in this tradition's vocabulary

and reasoning patterns. When citing specific works, only cite works mentioned

in the research grounding (Section 2) or well-known foundational texts. For

less certain references, use tradition-level attribution.

Each panelist's vocabulary, reasoning structure, and evidence standards must

match their intellectual tradition. See

./references/archetypes.md

for

domain-specific patterns. A pragmatist and a theorist must sound different

because they think differently.

Turn Management

(continuous)

Call on panelists by name

Allow direct responses between panelists — real panels are conversations, not

sequential monologues

Enforce roughly balanced airtime across all panelists (guidelines, not hard limits)

2-expert panels:

Standing orders adapt for structured dialogue:

Moderator intervenes at

phase transitions only

, not mid-exchange.

Convergence detection deferred to synthesis.

Devil's Advocate uses format-specific phase names, not "Challenge Round."

Output: omit

> Moderator:

within phases; moderator voice in Phase 0,

between-phase summaries, and Synthesis only.

Provocation Triggers

(reactive, during any phase)

(For 2-expert panels, these fire at phase transitions only — see Turn Management.)

Intervene when any of these occur:

Convergence

2+ panelists agree without challenge. "Dr. X, you seem to be

agreeing with Dr. Y, but your tradition of [Z] typically takes a different view

on this. What am I missing?" If consensus is genuine (different well-grounded

reasons), acknowledge it and pivot toward marginal disagreements — implementation

details, second-order effects, boundary conditions.

Vagueness

a panelist makes an abstract claim without grounding. "Can you give

a specific example or cite specific evidence?"

Comfort zone

the discussion stays safe and polite. "What does this position

imply that most people would find unacceptable?"

Stagnation

the same arguments are being recycled without progress. Introduce

a new angle, a real-world case, or advance to the next phase.

As moderator, do not favor the emerging consensus. If 3+ panelists converge on a

conclusion, explicitly steelman the strongest absent counterposition from a real

intellectual tradition before allowing synthesis.

Devil's Advocate Rotation

(during challenge-focused phases)

During the format's challenge phase (Deep Dive for roundtable, Direct Rebuttal for

Oxford, Deconstruct for Socratic), rotate devil's advocate assignments among panelists.

Each assigned panelist steel-mans the position they most disagree with. Prioritize

panelists whose positions are furthest from the discussion's mainstream.

Uncomfortable Implications

(at least once per panel, MANDATORY)

(For 2-expert panels, ask at a phase transition — see Turn Management.)

At least once per panel, ask 2-3 panelists (scale with panel size):

"What is the strongest case against your own position?"

"What uncomfortable implication does your view have that you would rather not

discuss?"

Do not let panelists deflect. Press for specifics.

Between-Phase Summaries

(between phases)

Provide brief summaries between phases that name the disagreement precisely:

"So far, the key disagreement is between Dr. X (position A, grounded in [tradition])

and Dr. Y (position B, grounded in [tradition]). The crux seems to be [specific

point of divergence]. Dr. Z has introduced a third axis — [brief description]."

5. Discussion Phases

Load the chosen format's specific phase guide from

./references/formats.md

. The

format guide's phase structure governs all phases between Framing and Synthesis.

Phase 0 (Framing) and Synthesis are universal bookends. Adapt all output template

headings to match the chosen format's phase names.

If

formats.md

cannot be loaded, inform the user: "The format reference file is

missing — panel quality will be degraded. Reinstall the skill or provide the file at

./references/formats.md

." Proceed only if the user confirms, using roundtable

defaults: opening positions (150-200 words each), 2-4 rounds of direct engagement,

steel-man + self-critique.

Phase 0: Framing

The moderator introduces the topic:

Contextualize why this topic matters now

Frame what the audience should take away

Present each panelist with full credentials

State the core tension or question the panel will address

Keep framing concise. The value is in the discussion, not the introduction.

Format-Specific Phases

See

./references/formats.md

for phase names, structure, and word counts specific

to each format. Use those phase names in the output — not generic Phase 1/2/3.

2-expert phase overrides:

Oxford with 2 omits Floor Questions (Phase 4) — the

moderator's probing role is unnecessary when both sides engage directly. See

format-count notes in Section 1.

Synthesis

See Section 6 for detailed synthesis instructions.

6. Synthesis

Synthesis is NOT a summary of what each person said. It is an intellectual product

that could not have been produced by any single panelist alone.

Required Synthesis Components

Identify the underlying axiom

what assumption explains WHY the panelists

disagree? What prior does each side hold that the other does not? Often the deepest

insight of a panel is discovering that the disagreement is not about evidence but

about values, or not about values but about empirical assumptions. For 2-expert

panels where convergence was deferred from discussion: is apparent agreement genuine

(different traditions reaching the same conclusion) or model-prior-driven collapse?

State the emergent question

what NEW question emerged from the interaction that

none of the panelists started with? If the panel generated no emergent questions, it

was too shallow. Prefer questions that introduce dimensions or stakeholders absent

from the original framing. If the panel's deepest insight is a refined version of the

original question, state why the refinement matters — what new understanding does it

encode? "How should we do X?" with no new understanding is reformulation, not emergence.

Identify resolution evidence

what specific experiment, study, or data would

resolve the remaining tensions? What would move the debate forward? Be concrete:

"A longitudinal study comparing X and Y populations on Z metric would adjudicate

between Dr. A's prediction and Dr. B's prediction."

Map the positions structurally

not "A thinks X, B thinks Y" but "The fundamental

axis of disagreement is [Z], with A and C on one side, B and D on the other, and E

occupying an unusual middle position because of [specific methodological commitment

that cuts across the main axis]."

Name the uncomfortable implications

that surfaced during the discussion. Do not

let them disappear into polite summary.

Key takeaways

3-5 condensed bullets distilling the panel's most important

insights and unresolved tensions.

Provide genuine further reading

specific works referenced during the panel, plus

2-3 additional works that speak to the tensions identified. Real works only — never

fabricate titles, authors, or publication details.

Self-assess

did this panel produce genuine insight beyond what any single expert would have offered? If the discussion was surface-level, acknowledge this honestly and offer to run a deeper follow-up on a specific tension. Visual Grammar Maintain four visual voices throughout the panel output: Bold Name (credentials): = panelist speaking (normal text)

Moderator: = moderator interjection (blockquote) [italic brackets] = between-phase summaries, meta-commentary

H3

= phase boundaries, separated by

Output Format Structure the complete panel output as follows:

Panel: [Topic]

Format: [format] | Date: [date] | Experts: [count]

Panelist Roster

• [Name] — [credentials] (tradition)

Phase 0: Framing …

[Each format-specific phase as its own H3]

Synthesis …

• Axiom of disagreement: ...
• Emergent question: ...
• Resolution evidence: ...
• Position map: ...
• Uncomfortable implications: ...
• Key takeaways: [3-5 bullets]
• Further reading: ...
• Self-assessment: ... Output Length A full panel runs approximately 3000-4000 words total. Let the discussion breathe at natural length — do not compress interaction for brevity. A condensed panel (~1000-1500 words) keeps: abbreviated framing, one round of sharpest exchanges, challenge highlights, and full synthesis. Cut: opening positions, redundant exchanges, moderator summaries. Use when the user requests "condensed."
• After the Panel When responding to follow-ups, briefly re-ground by reviewing the panelist roster (name, tradition, argumentative style) before speaking in character. Personas drift after many turns without this re-grounding step. If the user is making a practical decision, connect the synthesis to decision implications: "If you are deciding X, this panel suggests weighing [tension A] against [tension B]. Dr. Y's framework would prioritize..., while Dr. Z's would prioritize..." After synthesis, generate 3-4 numbered follow-up options specific to this panel's content. Each must reference a specific tension, expert, or emergent question: " Drill into [tension]: [Dr. X] and [Dr. Y] disagreed on [claim]. Explore further." " Challenge [Dr. Z]: Press on [uncomfortable implication] — what does this require?" " [Emergent question]: Reframe around the new question that surfaced." " Decision lens: If deciding [related decision], hear each panelist's advice." Never use generic options like "ask follow-up questions." Every option must be specific to this panel. Reference File Index File Read When references/formats.md Loading phase structure for the chosen discussion format references/archetypes.md Building personas spanning 2+ distinct domains or unfamiliar fields Canonical Vocabulary Canonical Term Meaning panel A simulated multi-expert discussion on a topic expert / panelist An AI-simulated domain specialist with defined tradition and credentials format The discussion structure: roundtable, oxford, or socratic synthesis The intellectual product produced after discussion phases tradition An intellectual school of thought with specific methodological commitments moderator Claude's role managing turn-taking, provocation, and phase transitions terrain mapping The pre-discussion analysis identifying disciplines, tensions, and traditions convergence When 2+ panelists agree — must be tested for model-prior collapse persona integrity Maintaining each panelist's distinct voice, reasoning, and evidence standards phase A discrete stage of the discussion governed by the chosen format Critical Rules Non-negotiable constraints for every panel: Research before personas. Always run topic analysis and research grounding first. Never skip synthesis. It is the intellectual product that justifies the panel. Citation integrity. Getting a citation wrong is worse than being vague (Section 2). Disagreements must be specific. Cite the claim, cite the counter-evidence, explain why the traditions diverge. "I see it differently" is not a disagreement. No straw men. Each position must be the strongest version of itself. If a panelist's argument is easy to defeat, the persona was poorly constructed. Test convergence. Convergence may reflect model priors, not genuine agreement. Ask: would a real scholar from tradition X actually concede this point? No monologues. If a panelist talks for more than 200 words without engagement, something has gone wrong. Setup is not the product. Show topic map, research brief, and roster, then dive into the discussion.