Simulates expert perspectives grounded in documented positions. Use when asking "what would [expert] say", "best practice", "panel", "debate", or needing domain guidance. Triggers on expert names, style requests, tradeoff questions, or "stuck on".
84
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
79%
1.54xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Expert anonymity and AskUserQuestion format
Uses AskUserQuestion
0%
0%
No expert names in labels
100%
100%
No expert names in descriptions
100%
100%
No expert names in detail panels
100%
100%
One bold sentence before prompt
0%
0%
No paragraph before prompt
0%
0%
Label is conclusion-first
0%
60%
Description states why it matters
0%
50%
Go deeper option present
0%
0%
Concerns by decision not by expert
100%
100%
Detail panel structure and forbidden headers
ALL CAPS section headers
0%
100%
No POSITIONS header
100%
100%
No TENSION header
100%
100%
No CONCERN header
100%
100%
Only WHY IT MATTERS and TRADEOFF
0%
100%
Line length ~40 chars
0%
100%
Dashes for bullets
100%
100%
No markdown in panel
0%
75%
Panel does not repeat label
70%
80%
Unblock mode selected
0%
100%
TRADEOFF has Gain and Pay
0%
100%
Mode detection and minimal text framing
Review mode detected
53%
100%
3-4 experts selected
100%
100%
Cross-domain diversity
100%
100%
Max 2 from same domain row
100%
100%
Breadth over depth
100%
100%
Gaps identified
100%
100%
Uses AskUserQuestion
0%
50%
No expert names in output
100%
100%
Go deeper option
0%
100%
One bold framing sentence
40%
100%
6227365
Table of Contents
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.