Patrick Plate
123 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
123 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: expert-panel-review
|
||
description: 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:
|
||
|
||
```markdown
|
||
## 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
|