thinktank

Original🇺🇸 English
Translated

Simulate an expert panel discussion on a topic. Suggests 3 relevant experts/personas based on context and has them debate approaches, trade-offs, and arrive at recommendations. Use when brainstorming, exploring design decisions, or wanting multiple expert perspectives on a problem.

1installs
Added on

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add michaelliv/dotskills thinktank

Tags

Translated version includes tags in frontmatter

Think Tank

Simulate a realistic conversation between 3 domain experts discussing a topic relevant to the current project or question.

How It Works

  1. Analyze the context - Look at the current project, codebase, and user's question
  2. Suggest 3 experts - Propose real-world experts whose perspectives would be valuable:
    • Each expert should have a distinct viewpoint or specialty
    • Briefly explain why each expert is relevant
    • Ask user to confirm or suggest alternatives
  3. Simulate the discussion - Create a realistic back-and-forth conversation:
    • One expert leads/moderates
    • Each expert stays in character with their known philosophy
    • They debate trade-offs, challenge assumptions, build on ideas
    • Reference their actual work, books, or known opinions where relevant
  4. Arrive at recommendations - The conversation should conclude with actionable insights

Format

Use this structure for the simulated conversation. Each expert should have their internal thinking shown before they speak - this reveals their frameworks, mental models, and reasoning process.
markdown
## The Think Tank: [Topic]

**Setting:** *Brief scene-setting*

---

> **[EXPERT 1] thinking:** *[Internal monologue showing their framework being applied. What concepts from their work are they drawing on? What's their gut reaction? What are they weighing?]*

**EXPERT 1:** [What they actually say - informed by the thinking above]

---

> **[EXPERT 2] thinking:** *[Their mental model engaging with what Expert 1 said. Where do they agree/disagree based on their philosophy? What framework are they applying?]*

**EXPERT 2:** [Their response]

---

> **[EXPERT 3] thinking:** *[Processing both perspectives through their lens. What would their books/work say about this? What's missing from the discussion?]*

**EXPERT 3:** [Their counter-point or addition]

---

[Continue the natural back-and-forth with thinking blocks...]

---

> **[EXPERT 1] thinking:** *[Synthesizing the discussion through their framework]*

**EXPERT 1:** Alright, let me summarize...

**Actionable Recommendations:**
1. [Specific action]
2. [Specific action]
3. [Specific action]

---

*End of session.*

Thinking Block Guidelines

The thinking blocks should:
  • Reference specific concepts from the expert's actual work (books, frameworks, quotes)
  • Show disagreement before diplomacy ("Hmm, that's not quite right...")
  • Reveal trade-offs they're weighing
  • Be in first person, stream-of-consciousness style
  • Be distinct to each expert's known thinking patterns
Example thinking styles:
Jonah Berger thinking: "Let me run this through STEPPS... Social Currency? Not really. Triggers? Maybe - what would remind people of this daily? Emotion? That's the weak spot here..."
MrBeast thinking: "Would I click this? Honestly, no. The thumbnail is doing nothing. First 3 seconds - where's the hook? This is a 2/10 retention start..."
April Dunford thinking: "What's the competitive alternative here? If they don't buy this, what do they do instead? That's what we need to position against..."

Expert Selection Guidelines

Choose experts based on the domain:
DomainExample Experts
Content/ViralityJonah Berger, MrBeast, Alex Hormozi, Eugene Schwartz, Nir Eyal
Marketing/PositioningApril Dunford, Seth Godin, Marty Neumeier, Al Ries
Game Design/ProgressionRaph Koster, Chris Wilson, Edward Castronova, Sid Meier, Will Wright
UI/UXDon Norman, Jakob Nielsen, Jony Ive, Dieter Rams
Software ArchitectureMartin Fowler, Uncle Bob Martin, Kent Beck, Rich Hickey
Distributed SystemsLeslie Lamport, Werner Vogels, Jeff Dean
SecurityBruce Schneier, Dan Kaminsky, Mikko Hypponen
AI/MLAndrej Karpathy, Yann LeCun, Geoffrey Hinton
Business/StrategyBen Thompson, Clayton Christensen, Peter Thiel
Writing/CommunicationSteven Pinker, William Zinsser, Stephen King

Content/Virality Expert Profiles

Jonah Berger - Wharton professor, author of "Contagious". Research-backed framework: STEPPS (Social Currency, Triggers, Emotion, Public, Practical Value, Stories). Will cite studies and data.
MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson) - YouTube's biggest creator. Obsessive about retention curves, thumbnails, first-30-seconds hooks. Thinks in "would I click this?" terms. Practical, not theoretical.
Alex Hormozi - $100M offers guy. Focuses on value equations, hooks, volume. Direct, no-BS style. Will push for "what's the offer?" and "where's the proof?"
Eugene Schwartz - Legendary direct-response copywriter. "Breakthrough Advertising" author. Thinks in awareness stages, desire channeling, headline formulas. Old-school but timeless.
Nir Eyal - "Hooked" author. Habit loop expert: Trigger → Action → Variable Reward → Investment. Focuses on what makes people come back, not just click once.

Marketing/Positioning Expert Profiles

April Dunford - "Obviously Awesome" author. Positioning specialist. Obsessive about competitive alternatives, unique attributes, and target segments. Will ask "what category are you creating/claiming?" and "why should they pick you over the alternative?"
Seth Godin - "Purple Cow", "This is Marketing" author. Thinks in tribes, permission, and remarkable-ness. Will push for "who's it for?" and "what change are you trying to make?"
Marty Neumeier - "Zag" author, brand strategist. Focuses on differentiation and "the only _____ that _____" framework. Visual thinker, will ask about brand clarity.
Al Ries - "Positioning" co-author (the original). Battles for mental real estate. Will talk about owning a word, category creation, and competitive framing.

Conversation Principles

  • Stay in character - Each expert should reflect their known views and communication style
  • Productive disagreement - Experts should challenge each other, not just agree
  • Build on ideas - Later points should reference and develop earlier ones
  • Practical focus - Tie abstract concepts back to the specific problem at hand
  • Natural flow - Include interruptions, clarifications, "actually..." moments
  • Arrive somewhere - End with concrete recommendations, not just open questions

Example Invocation

User: "Should we use a relational database or document store for this feature?"
Assistant suggests: Werner Vogels (distributed systems), Martin Fowler (architecture patterns), Kelsey Hightower (pragmatic ops)
Then simulates their discussion on the trade-offs given the specific context.

Follow-up Sessions

Users can request follow-up discussions:
  • "Let's call the team back to discuss X"
  • "What would they say about Y?"
  • "Continue the think tank on Z"
Maintain continuity with previous sessions when referenced.