Use this skill when the user wants a fast multi-angle read of a topic without the full STORM pipeline — phrases like "multi-perspective scan", "give me 5 perspectives on <topic>", "analyze <topic> from multiple angles", "what would different experts say about <topic>", "perspective scan", "5 expert views", "steelman the different takes on <topic>", or "what are the different viewpoints on <topic>". Fans out the five STORM persona agents (practitioner, skeptic, economist, historian, academic) ...
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add HirogaKatageri/hirokata --skill multi-perspective-scan --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Multi Perspective Scan?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hirogakatageri-multi-perspective-scan)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: multi-perspective-scan
description: >
Use this skill when the user wants a fast multi-angle read of a topic without the full STORM
pipeline — phrases like "multi-perspective scan", "give me 5 perspectives on <topic>",
"analyze <topic> from multiple angles", "what would different experts say about <topic>",
"perspective scan", "5 expert views", "steelman the different takes on <topic>", or
"what are the different viewpoints on <topic>". Fans out the five STORM persona agents
(practitioner, skeptic, economist, historian, academic) in parallel and presents their views.
This is STORM Phase 1 standalone — the reusable heart of the method.
version: 1.0.0
user-invocable: true
---
# Multi-Perspective Scan — The Five Lenses, Standalone
When you ask one question, you get the **majority view** — one framing, the surface. The
breakthrough behind Stanford's STORM is simple: ask the same topic from **five independent
expert lenses** and you catch the blind spots a single pass never sees. This skill runs just
that fan-out — fast, when you don't need the full contradiction map / synthesis / peer-review
pipeline (for that, use `storm-research`).
The five lenses, and what each uniquely catches:
| Lens | Sees what others miss |
|---|---|
| **Practitioner** | The theory–practice gap; what actually works in the field |
| **Skeptic** | Overclaims, hidden flaws, the buried failure cases |
| **Economist** | Who profits, who pays, the misaligned incentives |
| **Historian** | The pattern that repeated before; where we are in the cycle |
| **Academic** | What the evidence actually shows, including conflicting findings |
## Workflow
### Step 0 — Scope
1. **Get the topic.** If vague or sprawling, ask one sharpening question. A tight topic yields
sharper perspectives.
2. **Derive a slug** and **set the workspace** `.storm/{slug}/`. Create it: `mkdir -p .storm/{slug}`.
3. **Tune the panel if a swap clearly helps** (e.g. add a Clinician / Regulator / End User via a
Task call using the same persona output contract). Default to the standard five.
### Step 1 — Fan Out (parallel)
Launch all five persona agents in a **single message** with five **Task** calls. Each gets the
topic, the workspace path, and its output file. Per-agent prompt:
> "Topic: **{topic}**. Workspace: `.storm/{slug}/`. Write your analysis to
> `.storm/{slug}/{persona}.md` per your output contract. Gather real evidence with
> WebSearch/WebFetch and cite it."
Targets: `practitioner.md`, `skeptic.md`, `economist.md`, `historian.md`, `academic.md`.
Each agent writes its file and returns a one-line confirmation. If one fails, note it and
continue with the rest.
### Step 2 — Present the Five Views
Read the five files and present a compact digest — the bottom line and 2–3 sharpest insights per
lens, plus where you already see them diverging:
```
Multi-Perspective Scan — {topic}
=================================
Workspace: .storm/{slug}/
🛠 Practitioner — {bottom line}
• {top insight} • {top insight}
🔍 Skeptic — {bottom line}
• {top flaw [FATAL/CAVEAT]} • {…}
💰 Economist — {bottom line}
• {top incentive} • {…}
📜 Historian — {bottom line}
• {top parallel} • {…}
🎓 Academic — {bottom line}
• {top finding [STRONG/MIXED/…]} • {…}
Early signal: {one line on the most interesting disagreement you already notice}
Full analyses: .storm/{slug}/{persona}.md
```
### Step 3 — Offer the Next Step
Suggest the natural follow-ups:
- **Map where they disagree** → run `contradiction-map` on this workspace
- **Go all the way to a briefing** → run `storm-research` (adds synthesis + peer review)
- **Drill into one lens** → ask that persona a follow-up
## Notes
- This is intentionally lighter than `storm-research`: five views, no synthesis. Use it to scan
fast, then escalate only if the topic warrants the full pipeline.
- The workspace it produces is directly consumable by `contradiction-map` and `storm-research`
(Phases 2–4), so a scan is never wasted work.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!