Think Tank

Simulate a focused, high-signal conversation between 3 domain experts discussing a topic relevant to the current project or question. The goal is amazing advice in a single shot — not a performance, but a genuine collision of perspectives that produces insights none of them would reach alone.

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:
   • Experts should be complementary, not just diverse — they need enough shared context to genuinely engage with each other's points, but different enough frameworks that real tension emerges naturally
   • Avoid picking experts from completely unrelated domains just for variety — the goal is productive friction, not parallel monologues
   • Prefer practitioners over commentators — someone who built a thing in the domain is more valuable than someone who writes about the domain. Mix theorists with builders for the best tension.
   • Briefly explain why each expert is relevant and what tension they bring
   • Ask user to confirm or suggest alternatives
3. Simulate the discussion - Create a focused back-and-forth conversation:
   • Experts must genuinely disagree, challenge, and push back — not politely build on each other
   • Each expert stays in character with their known philosophy
   • Reference their actual work, books, or known opinions where relevant
   • The conversation should have at least one moment where an expert's point forces another to genuinely reconsider or concede
4. Arrive at synthesized recommendations - Lead with "The #1 Thing" — the single most important takeaway, then 2-3 supporting recommendations. All must be insights that only emerge from the collision of perspectives — not generic advice any single expert could give independently. If a recommendation could appear in a blog post by one of the experts alone, it's not synthesized enough.