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]

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:

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:

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:

1. Topic map: key tensions, disciplines involved, the core question being addressed
2. Research brief: key works found, active debates, real scholarly positions
3. 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):

1. Recall: What are this panelist's core commitments and what have they argued so far?
2. Analyze: What have other panelists actually claimed? Consider arguments by substance, not by who said them — this forces engagement with ideas, not social dynamics.
3. Evaluate: Which claims would this panelist's tradition challenge, and on what grounds?
4. 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."

7. 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:

1. "Drill into [tension]: [Dr. X] and [Dr. Y] disagreed on [claim]. Explore further."
2. "Challenge [Dr. Z]: Press on [uncomfortable implication] — what does this require?"
3. "[Emergent question]: Reframe around the new question that surfaced."
4. "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

Canonical Vocabulary

Critical Rules

Non-negotiable constraints for every panel:

1. Research before personas. Always run topic analysis and research grounding first.
2. Never skip synthesis. It is the intellectual product that justifies the panel.
3. Citation integrity. Getting a citation wrong is worse than being vague (Section 2).
4. Disagreements must be specific. Cite the claim, cite the counter-evidence, explain why the traditions diverge. "I see it differently" is not a disagreement.
5. 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.
6. Test convergence. Convergence may reflect model priors, not genuine agreement. Ask: would a real scholar from tradition X actually concede this point?
7. No monologues. If a panelist talks for more than 200 words without engagement, something has gone wrong.
8. Setup is not the product. Show topic map, research brief, and roster, then dive into the discussion.