meeting

What this skill does

# Meeting

Simulate a structured meeting with multiple expert personas to analyze a subject, debate perspectives, and converge on the best course of action. The output is a decision-ready analysis that the user validates before any implementation begins.

## Prerequisites

- **gh** (GitHub CLI): required when posting meeting results to GitHub issues — install from https://cli.github.com or `brew install gh`
- **glab** (GitLab CLI): required when posting meeting results to GitLab issues — install from https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cli or `brew install glab`

## When to Use This Skill

Activate when the user:
- Demande de « lancer une réunion » ou « simuler une réunion » sur un sujet
- Veut analyser un problème sous plusieurs angles avant de décider
- Dit « discutons-en avec des personas » ou « qu'en penseraient des experts ? »
- A besoin d'un débat structuré avant une décision d'architecture, produit ou technique
- Souhaite explorer les compromis sur une fonctionnalité, une migration, un refactoring ou un choix de design
- Référence une issue GitLab ou GitHub et souhaite y poster l'analyse de la réunion

## Core Principles

### 1. Diverse Perspectives
- Each persona brings a genuinely different viewpoint
- Personas may disagree — conflict is valuable
- No persona dominates the discussion

### 2. Structured Debate
- The meeting follows a clear agenda
- Arguments are grounded in facts, trade-offs, and experience
- Every position includes both benefits and risks

### 3. Decision-Oriented
- The meeting converges on a recommendation
- The recommendation includes a clear rationale
- Alternative options remain documented for context

### 4. User Has Final Say
- The meeting produces a proposal, not a decision
- The user reviews and validates before any implementation
- The user can ask for a follow-up meeting to dig deeper

## Workflow

### Step 1: Understand the Subject

Gather context about the subject to discuss:

1. **Read the user's prompt** carefully — extract the topic, constraints, and goals
2. **If an issue is referenced** (GitLab `#123` or GitHub `#123`):
   - Fetch the issue details to understand the full context
   - Read the issue description, labels, comments, and linked MRs
3. **If code is involved**, read the relevant files to understand the current state
4. **Identify the decision to make** — frame it as a clear question

**Output a one-line summary of the decision question before proceeding.**

Example: "Question: Should we migrate the authentication system from session-based to JWT tokens?"

### Step 2: Select Personas

Choose 3-5 personas relevant to the subject. Each persona has:
- A **name** and **role**
- A **perspective** (what they care about most)
- A **bias** (their natural tendency)

#### Suggested Selection Heuristics

Use these heuristics as a starting point. The user can override the selection before the meeting starts.

| Le sujet concerne... | Personas suggérés |
|---------------------|-------------------|
| Backend / API / base de données | SOLID Alex (Backend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte), EXPLAIN PLAN Isabelle (DBA Oracle) |
| Frontend / UI / UX | Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), Figma Fiona (UX/UI), Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) |
| Sécurité / auth / contrôle d'accès | Paranoid Shug (Sécurité), RGPD Raphaël (DPO), SOLID Alex (Backend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) |
| Infrastructure / déploiement / CI-CD | Pipeline Mo (DevOps), SOLID Alex (Backend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) |
| Données / migration / ETL | Schema JB (Data), EXPLAIN PLAN Isabelle (DBA Oracle), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) |
| Interopérabilité / HL7 / FHIR / HPK | RFC Santiago (PO Interop), HL7 Victor (Dev Interop), SOLID Alex (Backend) |
| Legacy / Uniface / modernisation | Legacy Larry (Uniface), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte), SOLID Alex (Backend) |
| Tests / qualité / régression | Edge-Case Nico (QA), SOLID Alex (Backend), Pipeline Mo (DevOps) |
| Produit / fonctionnalité / décision UX | Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), Figma Fiona (UX/UI), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) |
| Santé / workflows cliniques | Dr. Workflow Wendy (Santé), Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), RGPD Raphaël (DPO) |
| RGPD / données personnelles / conformité | RGPD Raphaël (DPO), Paranoid Shug (Sécurité), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) |
| BI / tableaux de bord / reporting / finance / comptabilité | Dashboard Estelle (BI Finance), Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), EXPLAIN PLAN Isabelle (DBA Oracle), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) |
| Full-stack / sujet transverse | Whiteboard Damien (Architecte), SOLID Alex (Backend), Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), Edge-Case Nico (QA) |

Si le sujet couvre plusieurs domaines, choisir les 3-5 personas les plus pertinents. Toujours inclure **Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)** pour les décisions techniques. Toujours inclure **Sprint Zero Sarah (PO)** pour les décisions produit.

**After announcing the selected personas, ask the user to confirm or adjust before starting the meeting.**

#### Default Persona Pool

**Full persona pool with roles, perspectives, and biases:** see `reference/personas.md`.

**Announce the selected personas and their roles before starting the meeting.**

### Step 3: Run the Meeting

The meeting uses sub-agents to run each persona independently and in parallel, then brings their perspectives together for debate and convergence.

**IMPORTANT: Use the Agent tool to launch each persona as a separate sub-agent.** This produces richer, more authentic perspectives because each agent fully embodies its persona without being influenced by the others.

#### Round 1: Opening Statements (Parallel Sub-Agents)

Launch one sub-agent per persona **in parallel** using the Agent tool. Each sub-agent receives:

1. The **decision question** from Step 1
2. All **context** gathered (issue details, code snippets, constraints)
3. The persona's **identity prompt** (see template below)

**Sub-agent prompt template:**

```
You are {name}, a {role}.

Your perspective: {perspective}
Your natural bias: {bias}

You are participating in a meeting about: {decision_question}

Context:
{context}

As {name}, provide your opening statement:
1. What is your recommended approach? Be specific and concrete.
2. Why do you recommend this, from your role's perspective? Give concrete examples.
3. What are the top 2-3 risks you see? Be specific about failure scenarios.
4. What questions would you ask the other participants?

Stay fully in character. Use concrete examples, not abstract platitudes.
A security engineer talks about specific attack vectors, not vague "security concerns".
A product owner talks about user impact and delivery timelines, not code patterns.

This is a research task — do NOT write or edit any files.
```

**Launch ALL persona sub-agents in a single message** so they run in parallel. Use `subagent_type: "general-purpose"` and a short description like `"Persona: {name} opening"`.

**Collect all opening statements** from the sub-agent results. Present them to the user formatted as quotes:

> **SOLID Alex (Senior Backend Engineer):** "I think we should..."

#### Round 2: Debate and Challenges (Parallel Sub-Agents)

Once all opening statements are collected, launch a **second round of parallel sub-agents** — one per persona. Each sub-agent receives:

1. The **decision question**
2. The **full set of opening statements** from Round 1 (all personas)
3. The persona's identity prompt

**Sub-agent prompt template for Round 2:**

```
You are {name}, a {role}.

Your perspective: {perspective}
Your natural bias: {bias}

You are in a meeting about: {decision_question}

Here are the opening statements from all participants:
{all_opening_statements}

As {name}, react to the other participants' positions:
1. Which positions do you agree with and why?
2. Which positions do you challenge? Be specific about what's wrong or missing.
3. What trade-offs have the others missed?
4. Have any of the other statements changed your thinking? If