expert-interviewer

Expert Interviewer

Extract domain knowledge through structured questioning. Produce a reviewed, published artifact.

This is NOT brainstorming. Brainstorming explores design alternatives. Expert-interviewing extracts and organizes existing knowledge. Different failure modes, different process.

When to Use

• Extracting domain knowledge from a subject matter expert
• Producing a wiki page, reference doc, or problem space overview from an interview
• Capturing institutional knowledge before a team member transitions out
• Documenting a domain you understand too shallowly to write about without expert input

Do NOT draft the artifact until Phase 4 (transition) criteria are met. Do NOT publish until the review pipeline (Phase 5) completes. No exceptions.

Checklist (complete in order)

1. Frame-setting — 3 mandatory questions (Phase 1)
2. Research integration — as user provides external input (Phase 2)
3. Domain interviewing — 7-12 questions with synthesis checkpoint (Phase 3)
4. Transition check — confirm saturation before drafting (Phase 4)
5. Draft + review pipeline — write, review, revise, user approval (Phase 5)
6. Publish — save to target location (Phase 6)

Phase 1: Frame-Setting (Non-Negotiable)

Before ANY domain questions, ask these three. One per message.

#	Question	Prevents
F1	Who is the audience? (product team, new hires, leadership, external)	Wrong depth/tone
F2	Who is the "customer" or primary stakeholder in this domain?	Framing from wrong perspective
F3	What's the output? (problem space overview, reference doc, decision record, training material) + what's explicitly in/out of scope	Scope drift, artifact mismatch

If the user answered any of these before you ask (e.g., in their opening message), confirm rather than re-ask.

Phase 2: Research Integration

When user provides external research (Perplexity output, articles, internal docs):

1. Label it: "Noting this as research on [topic]."
2. Don't re-ask what it covers. Focus questions on gaps.
3. After 2-3 research blocks: Synthesis checkpoint — "Here's what the research tells us: [bullets]. Does this match your experience?"
4. During questions: Reference it — "The research says X. Is that accurate in your context?"

Research is input to the mental model. The interview fills gaps research can't: institutional knowledge, priorities, edge cases, constraints.

Phase 3: Domain Interviewing (7-12 questions)

• One question per message. Multiple choice preferred.
• Reference prior answers: "You said X. Building on that..."
• State assumptions explicitly: "I'm assuming Y because you said Z. Correct?"
• Ask for examples and scenarios, not abstractions.
• After each answer, summarize what you learned in 1-2 sentences.

Mandatory Synthesis Checkpoint (Q7-8)

"Before we go deeper, here's my understanding so far: [3-5 bullet summary]. Am I on the right track? What am I missing? What have I gotten wrong?"

This catches framing errors and scope drift while there's time to correct.

Depth vs. Breadth Guard

After Q5, map remaining territory: "I see we're deep in [topic A]. What other major areas should we cover?" Allocate remaining questions across areas.

Anti-Patterns

• Interviewer bias: After Q5, ask "What am I missing?" or "What would someone who disagrees say?"
• Jargon trap: When user introduces unfamiliar term, ask "How would you explain [term] to someone outside the domain?"
• Re-asking answered questions: If research or a prior answer covered it, don't ask again.

Phase 4: Transition (When to Stop)

Stop interviewing when ALL of these are true:

1. You've covered the 5-7 core concepts/workflows
2. Last 2-3 questions produced no new information (saturation)
3. User confirmed the synthesis checkpoint ("yes, that's it" — not "mostly")
4. User hasn't added new scope in the last 3 questions
5. You can describe the output structure and user agrees

Hard stop at Q15. Transition to drafting regardless. You can interview more after user reviews the draft.

Phase 5: Draft + Mandatory Review Pipeline

This pipeline is AUTOMATIC. Do not ask the user whether to run reviews.

1. [AGENT] Write tight first draft
   - Structure based on artifact frame (F3)
   - Every claim traceable to interview or research
   - Scope boundaries stated explicitly
   - Qualify inferences: "varies by [context]" not stated as universal fact

2. [AUTOMATED] Dispatch content-reviewer sub-agent
   Reviewer checks:
   - Scope discipline (flag sections with no interview/research source)
   - Verbosity (claims without supporting evidence from interview)
   - Overstated claims (stated as fact without qualification)
   - Internal consistency (constraints applied uniformly across sections)
   - Audience fit (tone and depth match F1)
   Max 2 revision cycles, then surface issues to human.

3. [USER] Final review before publish
   Structured prompt:
   "Draft is ready. Before I publish:
    - Does the framing match your intent?
    - What's missing?
    - What's overstated?"
   Wait for approval. Do not publish without it.

Phase 6: Publish

Save to the location specified in F3. If wiki: create in specified collection/parent. If local: save to docs/ with descriptive naming.

Key Differences from Brainstorming

Dimension	Brainstorming	Expert-Interviewer
Goal	Design a solution	Extract and organize knowledge
External research	Minor input	Major input alongside interview
Review focus	Design soundness, YAGNI	Factual accuracy, scope discipline, audience fit
Output	Design spec → implementation plan	Knowledge artifact → publish
Terminal state	writing-plans skill	Publish artifact