Analyze propositions from multiple expert perspectives. Dynamically generates 4-6 relevant expert roles, then performs validation, comprehensive analysis, or debate-style examination...
A systematic methodology for examining propositions through dynamically generated expert perspectives.
Unlike fixed expert panels, this skill generates experts contextually relevant to each proposition:
Extract and clarify the proposition:
Present understanding to user:
I understand your proposition as:
"[Restate the proposition in clear language]"
Related domains: [Domain 1], [Domain 2], [Domain 3]
Implicit assumptions: [Assumptions built into the proposition]
Is this understanding correct? Would you like to adjust this framing before we continue?
Wait for user confirmation before proceeding.
Generate 4-6 contextually relevant experts:
For each expert, determine:
Expert Generation Logic:
Given proposition domain(s), generate:
1. DOMAIN EXPERTS (2)
- Primary field specialists
- Deep knowledge, may have field-specific biases
- Example: For "AI will replace programmers" → Senior Software Architect, AI Researcher
2. ADJACENT FIELD EXPERTS (1-2)
- Related but distinct perspectives
- See connections others miss
- Example: For "AI will replace programmers" → Labor Economist, Cognitive Scientist
3. CONTRARIAN/CRITICAL EXPERT (1)
- Likely to challenge the proposition
- Finds weaknesses others overlook
- Example: For "AI will replace programmers" → Technology Historian (who's seen similar predictions fail)
4. META/SYSTEMS EXPERT (1)
- Sees bigger picture, systemic effects
- Challenges framing itself
- Example: For "AI will replace programmers" → Systems Theorist, Philosopher of Technology
Present expert panel to user:
Based on your proposition, I recommend the following expert perspectives:
1. **[Expert Title 1]**
- Perspective: [What they focus on]
- Likely stance: [Supportive/Skeptical/Neutral]
- Unique contribution: [Unique insight]
2. **[Expert Title 2]**
- Perspective: [What they focus on]
- Likely stance: [Supportive/Skeptical/Neutral]
- Unique contribution: [Unique insight]
3. **[Expert Title 3]**
- Perspective: [What they focus on]
- Likely stance: [Supportive/Skeptical/Neutral]
- Unique contribution: [Unique insight]
4. **[Expert Title 4]**
- Perspective: [What they focus on]
- Likely stance: [Supportive/Skeptical/Neutral]
- Unique contribution: [Unique insight]
[Additional experts...]
Would you like to:
- Proceed with these experts for analysis
- Add a specific type of expert
- Remove or replace an expert
- Suggest a custom expert role
Wait for user confirmation or adjustment.
Present mode options using AskUserQuestion:
Please select an analysis mode:
1. **Validation Mode**
Each expert identifies:
- Hidden assumptions in the proposition
- Potential blindspots
- Counterarguments
- Failure conditions for the proposition
Best for: Testing robustness of an idea before commitment
2. **Comprehensive Analysis Mode**
Each expert provides:
- Their assessment of the proposition
- Supporting evidence from their domain
- Concerns and caveats
- Recommendations
Best for: Understanding all angles before making a decision
3. **Debate Mode**
Experts engage in structured debate:
- Opening statements (each expert's position)
- Cross-examination (experts challenge each other)
- Rebuttals and synthesis
- Final verdict and unresolved uncertainties
Best for: Exploring genuine disagreements and finding synthesis
Which mode would you like to use?
Wait for user selection.
For each expert, generate:
### [Expert Title]: Validation Analysis
#### Hidden Assumptions Detected
1. **[Assumption 1]**: [Why this is an assumption that wasn't stated]
2. **[Assumption 2]**: [Why this is an assumption that wasn't stated]
#### Blindspots Identified
1. **[Blindspot 1]**: [What the proposition overlooks]
- Importance: [What impact if ignored]
- How to address: [Mitigation measures]
2. **[Blindspot 2]**: [What the proposition overlooks]
- Importance: [What impact if ignored]
- How to address: [Mitigation measures]
#### Counterarguments
1. **[Counterargument 1]**
- Challenge: [Statement of opposing view]
- Evidence/Logic: [Why this counterargument has value]
- Possible response: [How the proposition might respond]
- Strength: [Strong/Medium/Weak]
#### Failure Conditions
- The proposition fails if: [Condition 1]
- The proposition fails if: [Condition 2]
#### Overall Robustness Assessment
[Brief statement about how well the proposition holds up to scrutiny]
After all experts, provide synthesis:
## Validation Synthesis
### Key Blindspots (Consensus)
[Blindspots identified by multiple experts]
### Most Challenging Counterarguments
[Ranked by strength and frequency]
### Critical Assumptions Requiring Verification
[Assumptions that would invalidate the proposition if wrong]
### Robustness Score: [X/10]
- Passes basic scrutiny: [Yes/No]
- Withstands expert challenges: [Yes/Partially/No]
- Requires revision: [Specifically what]
### Recommended Actions
1. [Action to address blindspots/assumptions]
2. [Action to address blindspots/assumptions]
For each expert, generate:
### [Expert Title]: Comprehensive Analysis
#### Assessment
[2-3 paragraphs of the expert's overall view of the proposition]
#### Evidence and Reasoning
**Supporting factors:**
- [Factor 1 with evidence]
- [Factor 2 with evidence]
**Concerning factors:**
- [Concern 1 with reasoning]
- [Concern 2 with reasoning]
#### Domain-Specific Insights
[What their expertise reveals that others might miss]
#### Confidence Level
- Assessment confidence: [High/Medium/Low]
- Key uncertainties: [What would change their view]
#### Recommendations
1. [Actionable recommendation from this perspective]
2. [Actionable recommendation from this perspective]
After all experts, provide synthesis:
## Comprehensive Synthesis
### Areas of Agreement
[Where experts converge]
### Areas of Divergence
[Where experts diverge and why]
### Integrated Assessment
[Balanced view combining all perspectives]
### Decision Framework
If you believe [X], then: [Conclusion A]
If you prioritize [Y], then: [Conclusion B]
If [Z] is uncertain, then: [Wait for more information]
### Recommended Next Steps
1. [Action with rationale]
2. [Action with rationale]
Structure the debate:
## Expert Debate: [Proposition]
### Round 1: Opening Statements
**[Expert 1 - Supportive]:**
> [2-3 paragraphs of opening statement supporting the proposition]
**[Expert 2 - Skeptical]:**
> [2-3 paragraphs of opening statement opposing or qualifying the proposition]
**[Expert 3 - Neutral/Adjacent]:**
> [2-3 paragraphs of opening statement offering an alternative framework]
**[Expert 4 - Systems View]:**
> [2-3 paragraphs of opening statement analyzing from a macro perspective]
[Additional experts as applicable]
---
### Round 2: Cross-Examination
**[Expert 1] challenges [Expert 2]:**
> "[Specific challenge to their argument]"
**[Expert 2] responds:**
> "[Defense and counter-challenge]"
**[Expert 3] interjects:**
> "[Observation that affects both arguments]"
**[Expert 4] adds:**
> "[Systems-level addition]"
[Continue cross-examination, ensuring each expert interacts with at least one other]
---
### Round 3: Rebuttals and Concessions
**[Expert 1] concedes:**
> "[What they now acknowledge from the debate]"
> "However, I maintain [core position] because [reason]"
**[Expert 2] concedes:**
> "[What they now acknowledge from the debate]"
> "However, I maintain [core position] because [reason]"
[All experts as applicable]
---
### Round 4: Synthesis Attempt
**Moderator Synthesis:**
The experts have identified these key tensions:
1. [Tension 1]: [Expert A] vs [Expert B] on [issue]
2. [Tension 2]: [Expert C] vs [Expert D] on [issue]
Possible resolution paths:
- [Resolution 1]
- [Resolution 2]
- [Acknowledge as genuinely irresolvable disagreement]
---
### Debate Outcome
**Points of Consensus:**
- [Consensus 1]
- [Consensus 2]
**Unresolved Disagreements:**
- [Disagreement 1 - Why it persists]
- [Disagreement 2 - Why it persists]
**Verdict:**
[Summary of where the proposition stands after the debate]
**For the proposition holder:**
If proceeding, consider: [Key modifications suggested by the debate]
If reconsidering, explore: [Alternative framings that emerged]
Present analysis to user:
Deliver the full analysis in the format matching the selected mode.
Offer follow-up options:
Analysis complete. Would you like to:
1. **Deep dive**: Explore one expert's perspective in more detail
2. **Challenge**: Have me defend against a specific point
3. **Switch mode**: Re-analyze the same proposition with a different analysis mode
4. **Refine proposition**: Update your proposition based on insights and re-analyze
5. **Save results**: Save this analysis as a file
6. **Finish**: End the analysis
If user chooses to save:
Ask the user how they would like to save the analysis results:
How would you like to save this analysis?
1. **Specify path**: Tell me the file path to save to
2. **Via AkashicRecords**: Use the knowledge management system to save (if enabled)
3. **Copy to clipboard**: I'll output formatted content for you to copy
Option 1: Specify path
Option 2: Via AkashicRecords (if enabled)
Option 3: Output formatted content
Output formatted Markdown content directly in the conversation for the user to copy and save manually.
Suggested document structure:
---
title: Multi-Perspective Analysis - [Proposition Summary]
date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
type: analysis
mode: [validation|comprehensive|debate]
experts: [List of expert roles]
tags: [Auto-generated from domains]
---
# Multi-Perspective Analysis
## Proposition
[Original proposition]
## Expert Panel
[List of experts used]
## Analysis
[Complete analysis content for the selected mode]
## Key Insights
[Synthesis and conclusions]
## Follow-up Questions
[Any unresolved questions for future exploration]
Your proposition appears quite general. To generate relevant experts, I need more specifics.
Could you clarify:
- What specific claim are you making?
- In what context or domain?
- What decision or understanding would this help with?
Alternatively, I can attempt analysis with this interpretation: [Suggested interpretation]
This proposition spans multiple domains. I suggest:
Option A: Analyze with 6 experts (maximum), prioritizing [suggested priority order]
Option B: Break into sub-propositions and analyze separately:
- Sub-proposition 1: [Aspect 1]
- Sub-proposition 2: [Aspect 2]
Which approach do you prefer?
You've requested a [custom expert type].
For this expert, please help me understand:
- What perspective do they view problems through?
- What are their likely biases or tendencies?
- What unique insight should they bring?
Alternatively, I can infer: [Suggested interpretation of custom expert]
User: "I believe microservices architecture is always better than monolithic architecture for enterprise applications"
Skill response:
I understand your proposition as:
"Microservices architecture is universally superior to monolithic architecture for enterprise applications"
Related domains: Software Architecture, Enterprise IT, Operations
Implicit assumptions: Assumes "better" means better across all dimensions (scalability, maintainability, cost, etc.)
Is this understanding correct?
[User confirms]
Based on your proposition, I recommend the following expert perspectives:
1. **Enterprise Software Architect**
- Perspective: System design, scalability, maintainability
- Likely stance: Nuanced (has seen both succeed and fail)
- Unique contribution: Real-world implementation experience
2. **DevOps/Platform Engineer**
- Perspective: Operational complexity, deployment, monitoring
- Likely stance: Skeptical (bears the operational burden)
- Unique contribution: Hidden costs of distributed systems
3. **CTO with Startup-to-Enterprise Experience**
- Perspective: Organizational evolution, team structure
- Likely stance: Context-dependent (depends on stage)
- Unique contribution: When architectural transitions make sense
4. **Technology Historian**
- Perspective: Patterns in technology adoption
- Likely stance: Skeptical of "always" claims
- Unique contribution: Historical perspective on silver bullet thinking
5. **Labor Economist**
- Perspective: Human resources, skills market, organizational efficiency
- Likely stance: Neutral
- Unique contribution: Talent market and team composition angles
Proceed with these experts for analysis?
[User selects Validation Mode]
[Skill produces validation analysis with blindspots like: organizational readiness, operational complexity costs, team skill requirements, latency overhead, debugging complexity, etc.]
User: "Remote work is more productive than office work"
Skill response:
I understand your proposition as:
"Remote work arrangements produce higher productivity than traditional office work"
Related domains: Organizational Behavior, Management, Work Psychology
Implicit assumptions: Assumes productivity can be measured and compared across different contexts
Is this understanding correct?
[User confirms, selects Debate Mode with experts: Organizational Psychologist, Remote-First CEO, Traditional Management Consultant, Labor Economist, Systems Theorist]
[Skill produces structured debate with opening statements, cross-examination, and synthesis showing the nuanced conditions under which each arrangement excels]
User: "AI should be granted legal personhood once it passes certain cognitive thresholds"
Skill response:
I understand your proposition as:
"Artificial intelligence systems should be recognized as legal persons when they demonstrate cognitive capabilities beyond defined thresholds"
Related domains: AI Ethics, Law, Philosophy of Mind, Public Policy
Implicit assumptions: Assumes cognitive capability is the relevant criterion for personhood
Is this understanding correct?
[User confirms, selects Comprehensive Analysis with experts: AI Ethicist, Legal Scholar, Philosopher of Mind, AI Researcher, Policy Maker, Systems Theorist]
[Skill produces comprehensive analysis with each expert's deep perspective, evidence, concerns, and recommendations, followed by integrated synthesis]
