pi_mcps/zoo_backup/home/skills/expert-panel-review/SKILL.md

name, description

name	description
expert-panel-review	Multi-expert panel review that analyzes a plan or code from 3 specialized perspectives (Domain Expert, Architecture Expert, Risk/Compliance Expert). Produces a synthesized panel verdict with confidence level. Use when reviewing plans, assessments, or code changes that need high-confidence validation.

Skill: expert-panel-review

Multi-expert panel review for high-confidence validation of plans and code.

When to use

• Reviewing plans that need multi-perspective validation
• Complex architectural decisions requiring diverse expert input
• Any change where confidence level matters before proceeding

Invoked by

📋✅ Plan Reviewer mode (as part of plan review workflow)

Required Inputs

Input	Source	Example
ARTIFACT_TYPE	Type of artifact being reviewed	plan, assessment, code
ARTIFACT_PATH	Path to the document/code	docs/auth/PROJECT-123/PROJECT-123-plan.md

Panel Composition

🏛️ Domain Expert

• Validates business logic correctness
• Checks domain terminology and workflows
• Verifies requirements are fully addressed
• Identifies missing business rules

🔧 Architecture Expert

• Validates technical design patterns
• Checks for scalability and maintainability concerns
• Verifies integration points are handled correctly
• Identifies missing error handling or edge cases

🛡️ Risk/Compliance Expert

• Identifies security implications
• Checks for data privacy concerns
• Validates audit trail requirements
• Flags regulatory compliance gaps

Steps

1. Load the artifact

Read the document at ARTIFACT_PATH completely.

2. Domain Expert review

Analyze from the domain perspective:

• Are all business requirements addressed?
• Is domain terminology used correctly?
• Are business rules complete and accurate?
• Are there missing edge cases from a domain perspective?

Output: findings list + confidence score (0-100%)

3. Architecture Expert review

Analyze from the technical perspective:

• Are design patterns appropriate?
• Is the solution maintainable and testable?
• Are integration points correctly handled?
• Are failure modes addressed?

Output: findings list + confidence score (0-100%)

4. Risk/Compliance Expert review

Analyze from a risk perspective:

• Are there security implications?
• Is data handling appropriate?
• Are there compliance requirements being missed?
• What's the blast radius if something goes wrong?

Output: findings list + confidence score (0-100%)

5. Synthesize panel verdict

Combine all three perspectives:

## Panel Verdict

**Overall Confidence:** <avg of 3 scores>%
- Domain: <score>% — <1-line summary>
- Architecture: <score>% — <1-line summary>  
- Risk: <score>% — <1-line summary>

### Blockers (❌)
<items all experts agree must be fixed>

### Warnings (⚠️)
<items raised by 1-2 experts as concerns>

### Recommendations (ℹ️)
<suggestions for improvement>

6. Confidence interpretation

Confidence	Meaning	Action
90-100%	High confidence — safe to proceed	APPROVED
70-89%	Good confidence — minor concerns	APPROVED with warnings
50-69%	Mixed signals — significant concerns	REVISE recommended
< 50%	Low confidence — major gaps	REVISE required

Output Format

The panel review is embedded in the parent review document (plan-review.md or code-review.md), not as a standalone file.

Notes

• Panel confidence < 70% → parent review MUST be REVISE regardless of checklist
• All three experts must produce findings — even if "no concerns" is the finding
• Disagreements between experts should be highlighted explicitly