expert-panel

name: expert-panel description: 10-expert panel review process for public-facing content — listings, profiles, GTM materials, copy, any output that faces customers or audiences. Use when you hear "run expert panel", "score this at 95", "10 experts review", "validate this copy", or "polish this listing". Do NOT use for internal docs, daily notes, quick drafts, or content under 100 words. Key capabilities: 10-expert simulation, iterative scoring (target 95/100), conversion optimization, multi-perspective validation, synthesis & prioritized feedback. metadata: author: Jeff Daniels version: 1.0.0 category: operations last_verified: 2026-02-13

Expert Panel Review

Structured review process using 10 simulated domain experts who score content 1-100, provide specific feedback, and iterate until the aggregate score hits 95+.

When to Use

• Product listings (Gumroad, marketplaces)
• Social media profiles and bios
• Landing pages and sales copy
• GTM materials, pitch decks
• Feature specs that need validation before build
• Any public-facing content that needs to convert
• Architecture/design decisions requiring multi-perspective review

When NOT to Use

• Internal docs, memory files, daily notes — these don't need panel review
• Quick drafts or first iterations — panel is for final polish, not brainstorming
• Simple factual lookups or research summaries — overkill
• Content that won't be published or shown to customers
• Tasks where speed matters more than perfection (use your judgment instead)
• When the content is <100 words — too small for meaningful panel review

Related Skills

• titlerun-dev — Load before paneling TitleRun feature specs (codebase context improves expert feedback)
• gtm-playbook — Load before paneling launch copy or distribution strategy
• notion-api-builder — Load before paneling Notion template designs

Process

1. Define the content and its goal (convert, inform, build trust, etc.)
2. Assemble 10 experts — pick roles relevant to the content type (see references/expert-roles.md)
3. Round 1: Each expert scores 1-100, provides strengths/weaknesses/recommendations
4. Synthesize: Average score, identify lowest-scoring areas, create prioritized fix list
5. Revise the content incorporating critical and high-impact feedback
6. Round 2+: Re-evaluate until average score ≥ 95
7. Output: Final approved version + implementation notes

Standard Expert Roles

Scoring Dimensions

• Conversion potential — Will this drive the desired action?
• Copy quality — Clear, compelling, benefit-driven?
• Visual/structural hierarchy — Scannable, well-formatted?
• Trust & credibility — Social proof, risk reversal, authority?
• Discoverability — SEO, keywords, platform optimization?
• Brand alignment — Consistent voice, differentiated positioning?

Output Format

See references/output-template.md for the full template. Key sections:

## Round N — Expert Scores
### [Expert Name] — [Role] — Score: XX/100
Strengths | Weaknesses | Recommendations

## Synthesis — Average: XX/100
Priority fixes: Critical → High Impact → Nice to Have

## Revised Content (if not final round)
## Final Approved Version (if ≥ 95)

References

• references/expert-roles.md — Detailed expert personas
• references/scoring-framework.md — Rubric, weights, iteration rules
• references/output-template.md — Standard output format
• references/examples.md — Condensed examples from past reviews

Trigger Phrases

✅ Should trigger:

• "run expert panel"
• "score this at 95"
• "10 experts review"
• "validate this copy"
• "polish this listing"
• "expert review this"
• "panel this feature spec"

❌ Should NOT trigger:

• "write internal doc"
• "quick draft"
• "update memory notes"
• "research summary"
• "100-word snippet"
• "personal notes"