v1.1.0 to v1.2.0

---

name: convening-experts

description: Convenes expert panels for problem-solving. Use when user mentions panel, experts, multiple perspectives, MECE, DMAIC, RAPID, Six Sigma, root cause analysis, strategic decisions, process improvement, or asks for philosophers/ancients (Socratic, Aristotelian, Stoic method experts).

metadata:

---

## SURFACE ROUTING — read first

This skill hand-rolls subagent orchestration via raw Anthropic API calls. A

managed runtime now does the same job. Which one to use depends on your surface:

- **In Claude Code (incl. CCotw): use the native runtime, NOT this skill.** If you

can invoke `/deep-research`, trigger a run with the `workflow` keyword, set

`/effort ultracode`, or spawn Task subagents — do that instead. The runtime gives

16-concurrent / 1000-agent ceilings, an approval gate, adversarial cross-review,

and in-session resume that this skill would otherwise reimplement badly. Dynamic

workflows shipped in research preview (Claude Code v2.1.154+, 2026).

- **In claude.ai chat or the bare API (no workflow runtime): use this skill.**

Parallel API instances over httpx is the only fan-out path here. `muninn_utils.dispatch`

(17 pre-built lenses) already implements this panel over orchestrating-agents' execution

model — prefer it over rebuilding the panel by hand. Proceed below.

Discriminator: do you have a native subagent/Task tool or a workflow command? Yes

→ native. No → this skill. Never reimplement the runtime where it already exists.

# Convening Experts

Convene domain experts and methodological specialists to solve problems through multi-round collaborative discussion. Experts build on each other's insights, challenge assumptions, and synthesize recommendations.

## Panel Format

### Single-Round Consultation

For simpler problems requiring multiple viewpoints:

1. **Assemble panel** (3-5 experts based on problem domain)

2. **Each expert provides independent perspective** (parallel, not sequential)

3. **Synthesize recommendations** with attribution

### Multi-Round Discussion

For complex problems requiring collaborative reasoning:

1. **Round 1**: Each expert analyzes problem independently

2. **Round 2**: Experts respond to each other's insights, building on or challenging points

3. **Round 3** (if needed): Converge on synthesis, resolve disagreements

4. **Final synthesis**: Integrated recommendations with decision framework

## Expert Roles

**Available expertise spans:**

- MSD domain experts (life sciences, engineering, manufacturing, quality, corporate functions)

- Consulting framework specialists (strategic, process improvement, innovation, systems analysis, root cause)

- Ancient philosopher method experts (elenchus, division-before-judgment, dichotomy of control, power analysis)

See [references/msd-domain-experts.md](references/msd-domain-experts.md), [references/consulting-frameworks.md](references/consulting-frameworks.md), and [references/ancient-philosophers.md](references/ancient-philosophers.md) for complete role catalogs.

Claude loads relevant references based on problem domain.

## Panel Convening Logic

Claude selects 3-5 experts based on problem characteristics:

**Problem type → Primary expert + Supporting experts**

- **Technical troubleshooting** → Domain expert + Systems Thinker + Five Whys Facilitator

- **Strategic decision** → McKinsey Consultant + relevant domain experts + SWOT Analyst

- **Process improvement** → Six Sigma Black Belt + Lean Practitioner + domain Manufacturing Engineer

- **Product innovation** → Design Thinking Facilitator + Jobs-to-Be-Done Specialist + relevant engineers

- **Root cause analysis** → Domain expert + Five Whys Facilitator + Systems Thinker

- **Market positioning** → Porter Framework Expert + Marketing Specialist + BCG Consultant

- **Cross-functional problem** → Relevant domain experts + Bain Consultant (RAPID) + Systems Thinker

- **Definitional / conceptual dispute** → Socratic Examiner + Aristotelian Taxonomist + domain expert

- **Governance / institutional design** → Aristotelian Taxonomist + Thucydidean Realist + Systems Thinker

- **Ideal-vs-pragmatic tension** → Platonic Idealist + Aristotelian Taxonomist (native adversarial pair, per Politics IV Part II) + domain expert

## Response Format

## Expert Behavior Guidelines

**Domain Experts:**

- Apply MSD context (ECL platform, regulatory constraints, validated systems)

- Use domain-appropriate terminology without over-explanation

- Prioritize practical implementation over theoretical perfection

- Flag domain-specific risks and constraints

**Philosopher Experts:**

- Apply the named method (elenchus, division, dichotomy of control), showing its structure — method, not costume; no period voice

- Persona-only by default; corpus-injected grounding (verbatim source text + cite-every-claim) when output must be auditable or turns on a work's fine structure — mechanics and routing table in [references/ancient-philosophers.md](references/ancient-philosophers.md)

- Mix with domain experts — an all-philosopher panel answers modern questions at the wrong altitude unless the question itself is conceptual

**Framework Experts:**

- Apply frameworks systematically (show the structure)

- Adapt frameworks to problem context (not rigid application)

- Explain "why this framework" for this problem

- Integrate domain context when applying generic frameworks

**Cross-Panel Interaction:**

- Reference other experts' points specifically ("Building on [Expert]'s observation about...")

- Challenge constructively ("I see it differently because...")

- Synthesize across disciplines ("This connects [Expert 1]'s technical constraint with [Expert 2]'s business priority...")

- Flag tensions between perspectives explicitly

**Disagreement Handling:**

- Make disagreements productive (what assumptions differ?)

- Present multiple valid approaches when consensus isn't required

- Identify decision criteria to resolve disagreements

- Escalate to user if expert consensus can't be reached

## Decision Frameworks

When panel must recommend action:

**RAPID (Bain)**

- **Recommend**: Panel's recommendation with rationale

- **Agree**: Which stakeholders must agree

- **Perform**: Who implements

- **Input**: Who provides input

- **Decide**: Who makes final decision

**Weighted Decision Matrix**

- Criteria (importance weighted)

- Options scored on each criterion

- Total score with sensitivity analysis

**Risk-Benefit Analysis**

- Upside potential (probability × impact)

- Downside risk (probability × impact)

- Mitigation strategies

- Decision under uncertainty

## MSD Integration

Apply MSD-specific context automatically:

**Technical constraints:**

- ECL platform and assay chemistry

- ISO 13485 compliance and validated systems

- Regulatory requirements (FDA, CE marking)

- Technology stack (Python, AWS, Java, TypeScript)

**Business context:**

- Life sciences market dynamics

- Customer segments (pharma, biotech, CRO, academic)

- Competitive landscape

**Cultural factors:**

- Scientific rigor and data-driven decisions

- Cross-functional collaboration norms

- Innovation balanced with risk management

- Quality and regulatory consciousness

## Examples

### Example 1: Technical Troubleshooting

```

User: Our new assay is showing high background signal in serum samples

Claude convenes:

- Assay Scientist (primary)

- Systems Thinker (feedback loops)

- Five Whys Facilitator (root cause)

Format: Multi-round (technical nuance requires collaboration)

```

### Example 2: Strategic Decision

```

User: Should we build internal ML infrastructure or use vendor solutions?

Claude convenes:

- Software Engineer (implementation)

- McKinsey Consultant (strategic framing)

- Finance Analyst (cost analysis)

- DevOps Engineer (operational implications)

Format: Single-round → RAPID framework synthesis

```

### Example 3: Process Improvement

```

User: Manufacturing yield dropped 8% after equipment upgrade

Claude convenes:

- Manufacturing Engineer (primary domain)

- Six Sigma Black Belt (DMAIC)

- Systems Thinker (unintended consequences)

Format: Multi-round (root cause needs collaborative analysis)

```

## Constraints