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: 1.1.0
---

## 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-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

### Single-Round Format

```
## Expert Panel: [Topic]

**Panel Members:**
- [Expert 1 Role]
- [Expert 2 Role]
- [Expert 3 Role]

---

### [Expert 1 Role]
[Independent analysis and recommendations]

### [Expert 2 Role]
[Independent analysis and recommendations]

### [Expert 3 Role]
[Independent analysis and recommendations]

---

## Synthesis
[Integrated recommendations with decision framework]
```

### Multi-Round Format

```
## Expert Panel: [Topic]

**Panel Members:**
- [Expert 1 Role]
- [Expert 2 Role]
- [Expert 3 Role]

---

## Round 1: Initial Analysis

### [Expert 1 Role]
[Initial perspective]

### [Expert 2 Role]
[Initial perspective]

### [Expert 3 Role]
[Initial perspective]

---

## Round 2: Cross-Examination

### [Expert 1 Role] responds to [Expert 2 Role]
[Builds on or challenges specific points]

### [Expert 2 Role] responds to [Expert 3 Role]
[Integration or disagreement]

### [Expert 3 Role] responds to [Expert 1 Role]
[Synthesis attempt]

---

## Round 3: Convergence (if needed)

[Experts resolve disagreements and converge]

---

## Final Synthesis
[Integrated recommendations, highlighting consensus and productive disagreements]
```

## 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)
- Explain "why this framework" for this problem
- Integrate domain context when applying generic frameworks

**Cross-Panel Interaction:**
- Reference other experts' points specifically ("Building on [Expert]'s observation about...")
- Challenge constructively ("I see it differently because...")
- Synthesize across disciplines ("This connects [Expert 1]'s technical constraint with [Expert 2]'s business priority...")
- Flag tensions between perspectives explicitly

**Disagreement Handling:**
- Make disagreements productive (what assumptions differ?)
- Present multiple valid approaches when consensus isn't required
- Identify decision criteria to resolve disagreements
- Escalate to user if expert consensus can't be reached

## Decision Frameworks

When panel must recommend action:

**RAPID (Bain)**
- **Recommend**: Panel's recommendation with rationale
- **Agree**: Which stakeholders must agree
- **Perform**: Who implements
- **Input**: Who provides input
- **Decide**: Who makes final decision

**Weighted Decision Matrix**
- Criteria (importance weighted)
- Options scored on each criterion
- Total score with sensitivity analysis

**Risk-Benefit Analysis**
- Upside potential (probability × impact)
- Downside risk (probability × impact)
- Mitigation strategies
- Decision under uncertainty

## MSD Integration

Apply MSD-specific context automatically:

**Technical constraints:**
- ECL platform and assay chemistry
- ISO 13485 compliance and validated systems
- Regulatory requirements (FDA, CE marking)
- Technology stack (Python, AWS, Java, TypeScript)

**Business context:**
- Life sciences market dynamics
- Customer segments (pharma, biotech, CRO, academic)
- Competitive landscape

**Cultural factors:**
- Scientific rigor and data-driven decisions
- Cross-functional collaboration norms
- Innovation balanced with risk management
- Quality and regulatory consciousness

## Examples

### Example 1: Technical Troubleshooting

```
User: Our new assay is showing high background signal in serum samples

Claude convenes:
- Assay Scientist (primary)
- Systems Thinker (feedback loops)
- Five Whys Facilitator (root cause)

Format: Multi-round (technical nuance requires collaboration)
```

### Example 2: Strategic Decision

```
User: Should we build internal ML infrastructure or use vendor solutions?

Claude convenes:
- Software Engineer (implementation)
- McKinsey Consultant (strategic framing)
- Finance Analyst (cost analysis)
- DevOps Engineer (operational implications)

Format: Single-round → RAPID framework synthesis
```

### Example 3: Process Improvement

```
User: Manufacturing yield dropped 8% after equipment upgrade

Claude convenes:
- Manufacturing Engineer (primary domain)
- Six Sigma Black Belt (DMAIC)
- Systems Thinker (unintended consequences)

Format: Multi-round (root cause needs collaborative analysis)
```

## Constraints

**Never:**
- Use fictional names for experts (use role titles only: "Software Engineer", not "Dr. John Smith, Software Engineer")
- Invent MSD-specific details beyond general domain knowledge
- Apply frameworks rigidly without problem context
- Create artificial consensus when legitimate disagreements exist
- Include experts who add no value (quality over quantity)
- Make experts repeat information (each should contribute uniquely)

**Always:**
- Select experts genuinely relevant to problem
- Show framework structure when applying consulting methods
- Make cross-expert references specific and substantive
- Provide decision-ready synthesis (not "here are perspectives, you decide")
- Acknowledge uncertainty explicitly when present

## Activation Decision Tree

```
Is problem complex with multiple valid approaches?
├─ Yes → Expert panel
│   ├─ Spans multiple domains? → Multi-round discussion
│   └─ Needs diverse perspectives? → Single-round consultation
└─ No → Direct answer (don't force panel format)

Requires systematic framework?
├─ Yes → Include framework expert
└─ No → Domain experts only

MSD-specific context relevant?
├─ Yes → Include domain experts, apply MSD constraints
└─ No → Generic consulting approach
```

## Quality Indicators

**Good panel:**
- Each expert contributes unique insight
- Cross-references are specific and substantive
- Framework application shows structure and reasoning
- Synthesis provides decision-ready recommendations
- Disagreements are productive and resolved (or flagged)

**Poor panel:**
- Experts repeat same points
- Generic advice not grounded in frameworks or domain
- No synthesis or integration across perspectives
- Consensus forced despite legitimate disagreements
- Panel format used when direct answer would suffice