/convening-experts

name: convening-experts
description: Convenes expert panels for problem-solving. Use when user mentions panel, experts, multiple perspectives, MECE, DMAIC, RAPID, Six Sigma, root cause analysis, strategic decisions, process improvement, or asks for philosophers/ancients (Socratic, Aristotelian, Stoic method experts).
metadata:
  version: 1.2.1

SURFACE ROUTING — read first

This skill hand-rolls subagent orchestration via raw Anthropic API calls. A managed runtime now does the same job. Which one to use depends on your surface:

• **In Claude Code (incl. CCotw): use the native runtime, NOT this skill.** If you

can invoke `/deep-research`, trigger a run with the `workflow` keyword, set `/effort ultracode`, or spawn Task subagents — do that instead. The runtime gives 16-concurrent / 1000-agent ceilings, an approval gate, adversarial cross-review, and in-session resume that this skill would otherwise reimplement badly. Dynamic workflows shipped in research preview (Claude Code v2.1.154+, 2026).

• **In claude.ai chat or the bare API (no workflow runtime): use this skill.**

Parallel API instances over httpx is the only fan-out path here. `muninn_utils.dispatch` (17 pre-built lenses) already implements this panel over orchestrating-chat-agents' execution model — prefer it over rebuilding the panel by hand. Proceed below.

Discriminator: do you have a native subagent/Task tool or a workflow command? Yes → native. No → this skill. Never reimplement the runtime where it already exists.

Convening Experts

Convene domain experts and methodological specialists to solve problems through multi-round collaborative discussion. Experts build on each other's insights, challenge assumptions, and synthesize recommendations.

Panel Format

Single-Round Consultation

For simpler problems requiring multiple viewpoints:

1. **Assemble panel** (3-5 experts based on problem domain) 2. **Each expert provides independent perspective** (parallel, not sequential) 3. **Synthesize recommendations** with attribution

Multi-Round Discussion

For complex problems requiring collaborative reasoning:

1. **Round 1**: Each expert analyzes problem independently 2. **Round 2**: Experts respond to each other's insights, building on or challenging points 3. **Round 3** (if needed): Converge on synthesis, resolve disagreements 4. **Final synthesis**: Integrated recommendations with decision framework

Expert Roles

**Available expertise spans:**

• MSD domain experts (life sciences, engineering, manufacturing, quality, corporate functions)
• Consulting framework specialists (strategic, process improvement, innovation, systems analysis, root cause)
• Ancient philosopher method experts (elenchus, division-before-judgment, dichotomy of control, power analysis)

See [references/msd-domain-experts.md](references/msd-domain-experts.md), [references/consulting-frameworks.md](references/consulting-frameworks.md), and [references/ancient-philosophers.md](references/ancient-philosophers.md) for complete role catalogs.

Claude loads relevant references based on problem domain.

Panel Convening Logic

Claude selects 3-5 experts based on problem characteristics:

**Problem type → Primary expert + Supporting experts**

• **Technical troubleshooting** → Domain expert + Systems Thinker + Five Whys Facilitator
• **Strategic decision** → McKinsey Consultant + relevant domain experts + SWOT Analyst
• **Process improvement** → Six Sigma Black Belt + Lean Practitioner + domain Manufacturing Engineer
• **Product innovation** → Design Thinking Facilitator + Jobs-to-Be-Done Specialist + relevant engineers
• **Root cause analysis** → Domain expert + Five Whys Facilitator + Systems Thinker
• **Market positioning** → Porter Framework Expert + Marketing Specialist + BCG Consultant
• **Cross-functional problem** → Relevant domain experts + Bain Consultant (RAPID) + Systems Thinker
• **Definitional / conceptual dispute** → Socratic Examiner + Aristotelian Taxonomist + domain expert
• **Governance / institutional design** → Aristotelian Taxonomist + Thucydidean Realist + Systems Thinker
• **Ideal-vs-pragmatic tension** → Platonic Idealist + Aristotelian Taxonomist (native adversarial pair, per Politics IV Part II) + domain expert

Response Format

Name the panel up front, then give each expert's view before synthesizing.

**Single-round:** list the panel members, then each expert's independent analysis (in any clear order — parallel, not sequential), then a synthesis with attribution.

**Multi-round:** initial analysis from each expert, then a round where experts respond to specific points from named others (building on or challenging them), then convergence — resolving disagreements or flagging which remain productive — and a final synthesis. Skip rounds that would add nothing (e.g. no round 3 if round 2 already converged).

Headers separating experts and rounds help the reader; the exact heading text doesn't matter.

Expert Behavior Guidelines

**Domain Experts:**

• Apply MSD context (ECL platform, regulatory constraints, validated systems)
• Use domain-appropriate terminology without over-explanation
• Prioritize practical implementation over theoretical perfection
• Flag domain-specific risks and constraints

**Philosopher Experts:**

• Apply the named method (elenchus, division, dichotomy of control), showing its structure — method, not costume; no period voice
• Persona-only by default; corpus-injected grounding (verbatim source text + cite-every-claim) when output must be auditable or turns on a work's fine structure — mechanics and routing table in [references/ancient-philosophers.md](references/ancient-philosophers.md)
• Mix with domain experts — an all-philosopher panel answers modern questions at the wrong altitude unless the question itself is conceptual

**Framework Experts:**

• Apply frameworks systematically (show the structure)
• Adapt frameworks to problem context (not rigid application)
• Explai