Host Panel
Facilitate research-grounded deliberation across simulated intellectual positions. Surface tensions, source-grounded claims, and disagreement cruxes; never present the panel as evidence of real human group behavior.
Invocation: /host-panel "topic" [format] [num-experts]
Dispatch Table
$ARGUMENTS shape | Dispatch | Action |
|---|---|---|
| empty | empty-help-gallery | Show the gallery, defaults, supported formats, and ask for a topic. |
| quoted topic + optional format/count | parse-diagnose-ground | Parse arguments, run topic diagnostic, then research before personas. |
| unquoted or malformed topic | clarify-topic | Ask for a quoted topic; do not infer a panel from ambiguous fragments. |
| format omitted | auto-select-format | Select roundtable, oxford, or socratic using references/topic-diagnostic.md. |
| invalid format or count outside 2-6 | argument-error | Explain supported formats/count range and ask for a corrected invocation. |
| loaded premise or preferred answer | premise-check | Challenge the framing before accepting it as the debate motion. |
| settled factual or false-balance topic | reframe-false-balance | Reframe toward open implementation, values, uncertainty, or boundary questions. |
| Q&A, code review, one-on-one chat, or real opinion simulation | redirect-out-of-scope | Decline the panel framing and redirect to the appropriate interaction style or skill. |
Empty/Help Gallery
If $ARGUMENTS is empty, present this gallery and wait:
| # | 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 |
Defaults: roundtable, 4 experts. Expert range: 2-6. Prefer 4-5; 6 is harder to maintain.
Format-count notes:
- Oxford with 2 experts is direct proposition-vs-opposition.
- Oxford with 3 experts uses one swing panelist.
- Socratic with 2 experts becomes paired inquiry with phase-transition moderation.
- Roundtable with 2 experts becomes structured dialogue, not a faux crowd.
Progressive Disclosure
Load only what the invocation requires:
- Always load
references/topic-diagnostic.md,references/research-integrity.md, andreferences/debate-research.mdbefore personas. - Load
references/archetypes.mdonly after the topic gate identifies the needed traditions. - Load
references/moderator-rules.mdandreferences/formats.mdimmediately before running the panel. - Load
references/synthesis.mdbefore the final product. - Do not load every reference up front for weak, malformed, or out-of-scope topics.
Optional parser: run uv run python skills/host-panel/scripts/parse_args.py $ARGUMENTS when shell access is available. Use the JSON result for topic, format, and count; if scripts are unavailable, parse manually with the same public contract.
Classification Gate
Topic Classes
| Class | Meaning | Default Action |
|---|---|---|
settled-factual | Mostly closed empirical question | Reframe or decline false balance |
open-value | Normative, policy, rights, incentives, or goals | Proceed |
controversial-factual | Live empirical disagreement with credible sources on multiple sides | Proceed with source ledger |
speculative | Future-facing or theory-building | Proceed with uncertainty labels |
thin-evidence | Sparse or indirect literature | Proceed only with explicit gaps |
decision-critical | User is making a practical choice | Proceed with decision implications |
Gate Actions
| Action | Use When |
|---|---|
proceed | Topic is specific, contestable, and sourceable enough for a panel |
reframe | Topic is too broad, loaded, asymmetric, or better posed another way |
clarify | Topic cannot be parsed or has too little detail |
decline-false-balance | Debate would stage denial of a settled factual matter |
Pipeline
- Parse. Preserve the public invocation contract. Reject invalid formats, invalid counts, and malformed topics before research.
- Diagnose. Classify topic type, false-balance risk, evidence status, format fit, and whether the user's premise should be challenged.
- Ground. Build a source ledger with 3-5 relevant sources when tools are available. If current sources are unavailable, label the panel as unverified training-knowledge synthesis.
- Map perspectives. Discover traditions from the topic and sources before personas. Prefer methodology diversity over theatrical variety.
- Run independent first positions. Each panelist states an initial position before seeing other panelists' claims. Subsequent rounds critique claims, not people.
- Moderate against collapse. Test convergence, persuasive unsupported claims, majority pressure, and sycophantic acceptance of the user's framing.
- Synthesize by trajectory. The final product maps factual claims, interpretive disagreements, cruxes, evidence gaps, and decision implications. It is not a vote.
Output Contract
Structure complete outputs with these sections:
Topic Gate- topic class, format choice, false-balance decision, and any premise challenge.Research Status- verified/thin/unverified status and evidence limits.Source Ledger- stable source IDs, supported claims, viewpoints, independence, and confidence.Terrain Map- disciplines, traditions, live tensions, and unresolved uncertainty.Panelist Roster- methodology cards, not theatrical character sheets.Panel Phases- format-specific phases fromreferences/formats.md.Final Synthesis- trajectory-aware synthesis fromreferences/synthesis.md.Follow-up Options- 3-4 concrete next moves tied to this panel's cruxes.
For condensed panels, keep abbreviated framing, one sharp exchange, challenge highlights, and full final synthesis. Cut redundant opening positions and repeated back-and-forth.
Critical Rules
- Research before personas. Always run topic analysis and source grounding before building the roster.
- Never stage fake balance. Settled factual claims must be reframed or declined as debate motions.
- Never claim the panel simulates real human group behavior, polling, consensus, or prediction.
- Cite real works only. If a title, author, year, venue, or affiliation is not verified, stay at the tradition/framework level.
- Show source status. Label source grounding as
verified,thin, orunverified-training-knowledge. - Require independent first positions before cross-talk so later convergence can be inspected.
- Treat rhetorical confidence as non-evidence. Persuasive claims need sources, logic, or explicit uncertainty.
- Test convergence. Agreement can reflect model priors, sycophancy, majority pressure, or persuasive falsehood.
- No straw men. Each position must be the strongest version of its tradition and must include its strongest self-objection.
- Never skip final synthesis. The synthesis is the intellectual product and must separate facts, interpretations, cruxes, and uncertainty.
Reference File Index
| File | Content | Read When |
|---|---|---|
references/topic-diagnostic.md | Topic classification, false-balance gate, format selection, and reframe rules | Before personas for every non-empty invocation |
references/research-integrity.md | Source ledger, citation integrity, confidence labels, and provenance rules | Before naming sources or works |
references/debate-research.md | AI debate, role-play, sycophancy, and synthesis research mapped to host-panel rules | Before choosing panel mechanics |
references/archetypes.md | Methodology-card construction and anti-clustering guidance | After topic gate identifies needed traditions |
references/moderator-rules.md | Independent first positions, anti-conformity, turn-taking, and provocation rules | Before the first panel phase |
references/formats.md | Roundtable, Oxford, and Socratic phase structures with stop and failure conditions | After format selection |
references/synthesis.md | Trajectory-aware final synthesis requirements and follow-up options | Before final synthesis |
Canonical Vocabulary
| Canonical Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| panel | A simulated deliberation across intellectual positions on a topic |
| expert / panelist | An AI-simulated domain specialist with a defined methodology and evidence standard |
| format | The discussion structure: roundtable, oxford, or socratic |
| source ledger | Stable list of sources, supported claims, viewpoints, independence, and confidence |
| topic gate | Pre-panel classification deciding proceed, reframe, clarify, or decline |
| terrain map | Pre-discussion map of disciplines, traditions, tensions, and uncertainty |
| tradition | Intellectual school, profession, or research program with methodological commitments |
| crux | A claim or assumption that would change the disagreement if resolved |
| convergence | Panelist agreement that must be tested for model-prior collapse or majority pressure |
| anti-conformity | Deliberate protection against consensus pressure and persuasive unsupported claims |
| final synthesis | Trajectory-aware product separating facts, interpretations, uncertainty, and implications |
After the Panel
For follow-ups, briefly re-ground by reviewing the roster, source status, and central crux before speaking in character or extending the analysis.
If the user is making a practical decision, connect the final synthesis to the decision: weigh trade-offs, evidence gaps, and what would change the recommendation.