---
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