persona-panel
SolidUse this skill when you need multi-persona parallel content review — domain experts, buyer personas, compliance reviewers, or custom catalog entries reviewing a target file or output. Dispatches N persona agents in parallel, consolidates verdicts via a configurable mode (voting-quorum, hard-gate-threshold, or coordinator-summary), and writes a timestamped sidecar to .orchestrator/persona-panel/. Invoked via /persona-panel <target-path>.
Install
Quality Score: 82/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- Kanevry
- Repository
- Kanevry/session-orchestrator
- Created
- 5 months ago
- Last Updated
- today
- Language
- JavaScript
- License
- MIT
Integrates with
Bundled in these plugins
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
persona-review
Convene a small panel of persistent reviewer personas (curated colleague-likenesses plus invent-on-demand) to review a document cold, in character, then synthesize a panel verdict. Use when the user wants a document reviewed by a panel, wants named perspectives on a plan or design, or when another skill (e.g. plan-review) convenes a persona panel for a load-bearing review.
persona-review
Seat a panel of real-distribution-grounded Korean citizen personas in front of a piece of UX, copy, or content and report how ordinary users would react. Samples 5 personas from a catalog, dispatches each as an independent panelist, and synthesizes their reactions. NOT a code/security/performance review (those are code-reviewer / security-reviewer lanes) and NOT a substitute for real user testing — it is a fast, diverse first-read stand-in.
multi-persona-review
A panel-review skill that critiques ONE artifact (launch post, README, doc, markdown, plan, design) via 3-5 disjoint user-perspective personas running in parallel, then synthesizes deduped, severity-ranked improvement points (P0/P1/P2). Use when the user says "작성글을 사용자 관점의 페르소나를 여러명 만들어서 (손넷 모델정도로) 피드백 받아바", "다면 리뷰 해볼까", "페르소나로 리뷰", "여러 관점으로 피드백", or in English "multi-persona review", "review this from different user perspectives", "get persona feedback on this post/README/doc", "panel review this artifact". Lighter than a full service audit — point it at ONE artifact, not a whole codebase. Do NOT use it for a whole-service or whole-codebase audit, nor for a gap-vs-benchmark loop (both are audit-service-gaps), and do NOT simulate diversity by renaming reviewers that inspect the same evidence.