# Panel

> Produce one recommendation from independent analysis of legitimate alternatives. Use when a consequential technical, architectural, operational, or product choice needs several perspectives before a decision. Do not use when direct evidence settles the choice, the user has stated a decision in the thread, or the work needs factual research instead of deliberation.

- Skill: `jcosta33/panel` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jcosta33/panel`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jcosta33/panel/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: jcosta33 (https://skillmd.com/u/jcosta33)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jcosta33/panel

---


# Panel

Independent first. Evidence next. One recommendation. No committee theater.

## Method

1. Lock one question, fixed evidence packet, constraints, decision owner, and reversal condition.
2. Honor a user-specified participant count. Otherwise choose the smallest panel that covers every
   material perspective. Never fill seats for symmetry.
3. Use the cheapest capable models unless the user requests otherwise. Launch fresh participants
   concurrently, give each one distinct decision-relevant perspective, and hide peer analyses until
   every initial response lands.
4. Require each analysis to name its recommendation, evidence, costs, failure modes, unknowns, and
   what would reverse it.
5. Verify load-bearing factual claims against direct evidence. Agreement proves nothing.
6. Compare options against shared criteria. Preserve the strongest dissent. If one decisive conflict
   can be settled by evidence, run one targeted follow-up. Then stop.
7. Recommend one option or state why evidence cannot choose. Never turn votes into truth or seize
   human-owned intent.

## Output

Answer in chat. Write no file.

Lead with the recommendation. Follow with one compact comparison table over the shared criteria,
the strongest surviving dissent, and the unknowns that would change the call. Tie every load-bearing
claim to direct evidence with an exact source locator and the smallest untouched decisive output
excerpt.

Persist no participant identities, votes, transcripts, or repeated rationale. Cut repetition,
softness, and ceremony without changing facts, evidence, or the recommendation. Explain only a
blocker, failed verification, or irreversible-action confirmation.