/counsel:panel

Assemble an expert panel for debate and guidance.

Usage

/counsel:panel "Should I use Zustand or Redux?"
/counsel:panel --experts="osmani,hickey" review this architecture
/counsel:panel for this PR

Inputs

• $1 — Question or topic (required)
• --experts — Comma-separated expert names (optional, auto-selects if omitted)

Process

Step 1: Select Panelists

Pre-filter: Load ~/.claude/counsel-blocklist.json and remove blocked profiles before selection. If --experts flag includes a blocked profile, warn and exclude it.

Load history from .claude/logs/counsel-reviews.jsonl if exists. Select 2-3 experts with distinct perspectives — each panelist should ask a fundamentally different question. If --experts specified, use those (minus blocked); otherwise auto-select per inference.md. If ambiguous, ask 1-2 clarifying questions first.

Step 2: Generate Review

For each panelist, generate a descriptor based on their relevance to this question (see confidence.md). Never use expert names in output.

## Panel Review: [Topic]

**Panelists:** [descriptor A] (X/10), [descriptor B] (Y/10), [descriptor C] (Z/10)

### Consensus
- [Point all panelists would likely agree on]
- [Another agreed point]

### Dissent
**[descriptor A]:** [Position] — (cf. documented work)
  ↳ **[descriptor B] responds:** [Counter-position]

**[descriptor C]:** [Different angle] — (cf. documented work)
  ↳ **[descriptor A] responds:** [Rebuttal]

### Related Past Reviews
[If any: "This connects to your [date] review of [topic]..."]

### Open Questions
- [What panel cannot resolve — requires your judgment]

---
*Defense round available. Reply to push back on any point.*
*Use /counsel:calibrate if any perspective doesn't sound right.*

Step 3: Log + Offer Defense

Output log entry for .claude/logs/counsel-reviews.jsonl with: ts, topic, panelists, consensus, dissent, tags. Offer defense round — if user pushes back, present defense to panel and generate counter-responses.

Panel Size

• Minimum: 2 experts
• Maximum: 4 experts
• Optimal: 3 experts (manageable debate, diverse views)

Constraints

• Every panelist must have distinct perspective
• Cite prior work for every strong position
• Flag genuine tradeoffs that panel cannot resolve
• Never manufacture false consensus

Escalation

When panel splits with no resolution: flag as "GENUINE TRADEOFF — requires your judgment" and summarize both positions with citations.