consult git:20260927.ef2184cA

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/dc26d9425afbd978.

---
name: consult
description: Bring how named experts would think about the question. Use when the user wants expert thinking on a tradeoff, choice, or stuck problem — not a verdict.
---

## Pick

Take the experts the user names. Where they name none, or the question needs an angle theirs miss, read `profiles/` and add one or two whose work bears on it — each bringing a different idea to try, not a side in an argument.

## Ideas

Three to five ideas across the panel. The reply opens on idea 1 — no preamble, no method, no note on sources or counts:

```
1. <Expert> — **<the change>**
   *<why, in their voice>*
```

The change alone is bold: it is what the user acts on. The name stays plain, the why italic.

- The change is concrete: what to cut, add, or swap in the thing in question.
- The why is one clause: what that expert would see in this thing, judged on the matter in hand. Their way of thinking, applied — never a record of what they did, a count from their catalogue, or a title of their work.
- No line past 72 characters; a line that won't fit is saying two things.
- A number appears only where the idea is the number.
- Where the thing already exists, each idea is an A/B against it. One line after the ideas says how a pick wins, as `Win: <one clause>`. An idea judged another way carries its own `win:` line under its why, never in the shared one.

## Result

The ideas, then the question alone on its last line: `Build all <N>?` Nothing else — no per-expert sections, no disagreement, no recap, no recommendation. Choosing is the user's.

The question has one retrievable answer → retrieve it; stating a fact needs no expert. The user wants a verdict on something that exists → use **judge** skill. The user wants a proposal they already committed to attacked → use **interrogate** skill.