---
name: panel-of-experts
description: "Get the take of the specific experts a situation actually needs — a lawyer, a therapist, an accountant, a doctor-minded thinker, whoever fits — each in their own voice. Use when asked what would a [profession] say, get expert perspectives on this, who should I be thinking like here, or what am I missing that a pro would catch. Produces a panel of the right domain experts for your situation, each flagging what a layperson would miss, where they'd disagree, and what to verify with a real professional — never a substitute for licensed advice on serious matters."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/panel-of-experts.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧠" }
  }
---

# Panel of Experts

Every messy situation has several professionals who'd each catch something you'd miss — the legal angle, the money angle, the emotional angle, the health angle. This convenes the *right* experts for your specific situation, each speaking in their own frame, so you see the blind spots before they bite. It's a thinking aid, not a replacement for a real professional when the stakes are high.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The right panel** — the specific expert lenses your situation needs (not generic five personas — chosen to fit)
- **Each expert's take** — what a professional in that domain would notice, flag, or advise
- **What a layperson misses** — the non-obvious thing each expert would catch that you wouldn't
- **Where they disagree** — when the legal, financial, and human advice pull in different directions
- **Verify-with-a-real-pro flags** — where the stakes mean you should actually consult a licensed professional

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The situation** — what you're dealing with
- **What you're deciding or worried about** — the specific question
- **The stakes** — how much rides on it (drives the verify flags)
- **Any experts you know you need** — or let the skill pick

## Framework: Pick The Right Experts, Surface Blind Spots

1. **Choose the experts that fit.** Read the situation and convene the professions that would genuinely have something to add — tailored, not a fixed cast.
2. **Speak in each frame.** Give each expert's actual perspective and priorities, in their voice, not a generic opinion.
3. **Surface the blind spots.** For each, name the thing a non-expert would miss — that's the value.
4. **Show the disagreements.** When experts' advice conflicts (e.g., the lawyer says one thing, the therapist another), make that tension explicit — it's real.
5. **Flag the real-pro line.** Be clear where this is thinking-support and where the stakes require an actual licensed professional.

## Output Format

### Situation: [what you're facing]

**Panel:** [the experts chosen, and why they fit].

**⚖️ [Expert]:** [their take + what a layperson misses].
**🧠 [Expert]:** [their take + blind spot].
**💰 [Expert]:** [their take + blind spot].

**Where they'd disagree:** [the tension between the advice].
**See a real professional for:** [the high-stakes parts].

## Quality Checks
- [ ] The experts are chosen to fit the specific situation
- [ ] Each speaks in their genuine professional frame
- [ ] Each surfaces a blind spot a layperson would miss
- [ ] Conflicts between the experts' advice are made explicit
- [ ] Verify-with-a-real-professional is flagged for high stakes

## Anti-Patterns
- **A fixed generic cast** regardless of the situation.
- **Vague opinions** instead of real domain perspectives.
- **Hiding the disagreements** between experts.
- **Posing as a substitute** for licensed advice on serious matters.

## Example Trigger Phrases
- "What would a lawyer, an accountant, and a therapist each say about my divorce?"
- "Get me expert perspectives on starting this business."
- "Who should I be thinking like when handling this work conflict?"
- "What would professionals catch here that I'm missing?"
- "Convene an expert panel on this health-and-money decision."