---

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."

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."