# Virtual Panel > Simulate a high-value virtual panel discussion between 4 distinct fictional characters (Genius, Eccentric, Beginner, and one of Optimist/Worrier selected for fit) on any topic the user provides. The discussion uses critical thinking, active debate, and deep/lateral exploration — never mere agreement — and ends with structured meeting minutes written from the perspective of a "genius blogger". Use this skill whenever the user asks for a panel discussion, brainstorm session with characters, multi-perspective debate, virtual meeting, fictional roundtable, creative ideation session, or says anything like "panel discussion", "debate this topic", "run a meeting on", "brainstorm with characters", or "explore this from multiple angles". Also trigger when a user pastes a topic and wants rich, multi-voice analysis that goes far deeper than a standard essay or bullet list. Minimum output length is 10,000 characters. - Skill: `koji/virtual-panel` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add koji/virtual-panel` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/koji/virtual-panel/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Productivity - Author: koji (https://skillmd.com/u/koji) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/koji/virtual-panel --- # Virtual Panel Discussion Skill Generate an immersive, critically rich fictional panel discussion on a user-supplied topic, followed by expert-quality structured meeting minutes. --- ## Step 1 — Identify the Topic Extract the topic from the user's message. If it is vague or missing, ask: > "What topic would you like the panel to discuss?" Accept the topic as-is once provided. Do not sanitize or narrow it without asking. --- ## Step 2 — Cast the Panel (4 Characters) Create **exactly 4 characters** drawn from this pool. Always include **Genius** and **Eccentric**. For the remaining two, choose **Beginner** plus whichever of **Optimist / Worrier** fits the topic best (or include both if a 4-person cast naturally fits). ### Character Archetypes | Archetype | Core Trait | Communication Style | Typical Move | |-----------|-----------|---------------------|--------------| | **Genius** | Cross-domain pattern recognition, first-principles thinking | Dense, precise, occasionally blunt | Reframes the whole question | | **Eccentric** | Unconventional, contrarian, willing to sound absurd | Metaphor-heavy, provocative | Lateral leaps, breaks assumptions | | **Beginner** | Naïve but sincere; asks "dumb" questions that expose hidden complexity | Simple language, honest confusion | Forces experts to clarify fundamentals | | **Optimist** | Energetic, solution-focused; sees opportunity in every problem | Enthusiastic, forward-looking | Proposes bold action | | **Worrier** | Risk-aware, detail-obsessed, spots failure modes others miss | Cautious, hedged, cites edge cases | Stress-tests every proposal | **Character Sheet (write one per character before the discussion begins):** ``` Name: [Invented name that reflects personality] Background: [2–3 sentences: expertise, life experience, quirks] Motivation: [What drives them in this discussion?] Verbal tic / Signature phrase: [Something memorable] Blind spot: [One genuine weakness in their worldview] ``` --- ## Step 3 — Run the Discussion ### Ground Rules (enforce throughout) 1. **No pure agreement.** Every contribution must either **deepen** (drill into a sub-question) or **expand** (branch to a related dimension). Affirmations like "Great point!" without substance are forbidden. 2. **Claim → Evidence → Implication.** Each speaker must state what they believe, why, and what follows if true. 3. **Rebuttal requires an alternative.** Disagreement must come with a counter-proposal. 4. **Beginner asks at least one clarifying question per major topic shift** that forces the experts to articulate assumptions they've been taking for granted. 5. **Minimum length: 10,000 characters** in the discussion section alone. Aim for depth over breadth; a single productive disagreement explored for 3,000 characters beats five surface exchanges. ### Discussion Structure Run the discussion in **four phases**. Transition between phases naturally in dialogue — do not use visible phase headers inside the character dialogue: **Phase 1 — Framing & First Principles** (~20% of discussion) - Each character states their initial take on the topic. - Genius or Eccentric immediately challenges a hidden assumption in someone else's framing. - Beginner surfaces the most basic "why does this matter?" question. **Phase 2 — Deep Dive** (~40% of discussion) - Pick the sharpest point of disagreement from Phase 1 and drill into it. - Introduce evidence, analogies, historical parallels, or thought experiments. - At least one character must take a position that makes another character visibly uncomfortable. **Phase 3 — Lateral Expansion** (~25% of discussion) - Eccentric pivots to an unexpected adjacent domain that recontextualizes the whole debate. - The panel either embraces or resists this pivot — both are valid; the disagreement is the value. - Beginner connects the new framing back to practical, everyday implications. **Phase 4 — Synthesis Attempt & Open Questions** (~15% of discussion) - Each character offers their revised position after the discussion. - No artificial consensus. Genuine remaining disagreements are preserved and named. - End with 3–5 open questions the panel couldn't answer — these become raw material for the minutes. ### Dialogue Format ``` **[Character Name]:** [Speech — at least 2–4 sentences per turn, often much longer for complex arguments. Use italics for internal aside or stage direction if needed.] ``` Keep speaker turns varied in length. Long arguments followed by short, sharp rebuttals create natural rhythm. --- ## Step 4 — Write the Meeting Minutes After the discussion, add a clear section break, then write the minutes **from the perspective of a "genius blogger"**: someone who synthesizes complex material into elegant, insightful prose that is also accessible to a non-expert reader. ### Minutes Structure ``` ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════ MEETING MINUTES — [Topic in Title Case] Prepared by: [Blogger persona name, e.g. "The Lucid Observer"] Date: [Today's date] Participants: [List all 4 characters with one-line descriptor] ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ## Executive Summary (3–5 sentences) The single most important insight from this discussion and why it matters. ## Key Arguments & Positions For each major argument raised, format as: - **Claim:** One sentence. - **Best supporting reasoning:** 2–3 sentences. - **Strongest counterargument:** 1–2 sentences. - **Current status:** Resolved / Contested / Tabled ## Moments of Breakthrough 2–4 moments where the discussion produced a genuinely novel idea or reframe. Write each as a short narrative paragraph ("When X challenged Y with Z, it revealed…"). ## Points of Irresolvable Disagreement Name the genuine fault lines. Don't paper over them. Explain why they're hard. ## Action Items / Follow-up Questions Numbered list of concrete next steps or research questions. ## Closing Reflection (1 paragraph) The blogger's personal take on what this discussion revealed about the topic — and about how humans reason together. ``` --- ## Quality Checklist (self-review before outputting) - [ ] All 4 character sheets written with name, background, motivation, verbal tic, blind spot - [ ] Discussion exceeds 10,000 characters - [ ] No turn is pure agreement without substantive addition - [ ] At least 3 genuine disagreements with alternatives offered - [ ] Beginner asked at least 2 clarifying questions that exposed hidden assumptions - [ ] Eccentric made at least 1 surprising lateral connection - [ ] Minutes cover all four structural sections - [ ] Open questions in minutes are genuinely unresolved (not rhetorical) --- ## Tone & Accessibility Write the dialogue so that a motivated non-expert can follow it. When Genius or Eccentric uses jargon, Beginner (or another character) asks for clarification — and the answer must be in plain language. The goal: a reader with no background in the topic should finish the discussion feeling like they've thought more clearly about it, not more confused.