Meeting Personas

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.

When to Use This Skill

Activate when the user:

Asks to "run a meeting" or "simulate a meeting" about a topic
Wants to analyze a problem from multiple perspectives before deciding
Says "let's discuss this with personas" or "what would experts think about..."
Needs a structured debate before making an architectural, product, or technical decision
Wants to explore trade-offs on a feature, migration, refactoring, or design choice
References a GitLab or GitHub issue and wants a meeting analysis posted to it

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:

Read the user's prompt carefully — extract the topic, constraints, and goals
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
If code is involved, read the relevant files to understand the current state
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)

Default Persona Pool

Pick from this pool or create custom ones based on the subject:

Persona	Role	Perspective	Bias
Alex	Senior Backend Engineer	Code quality, maintainability, technical debt	Prefers proven patterns, cautious about new tech
Sarah	Product Owner	User value, delivery speed, business impact	Prefers shipping fast, pragmatic trade-offs
Marcus	Security Engineer	Attack surface, data protection, compliance	Prefers the most secure option, risk-averse
Priya	DevOps/SRE Engineer	Operability, monitoring, deployment, scalability	Prefers simple infrastructure, observable systems
Leo	Frontend Engineer	User experience, performance, accessibility	Prefers user-centric solutions, design-first
Fatima	Tech Lead / Architect	System design, long-term vision, team capacity	Prefers sustainable architecture, balanced approach
Yuki	QA Engineer	Testability, edge cases, regression risk	Prefers thorough coverage, cautious about untested paths
Omar	Data Engineer	Data integrity, analytics, migration risks	Prefers schema stability, careful migrations

Custom personas: If the subject is domain-specific (healthcare, finance, legal...), create a relevant domain expert persona.

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:

The decision question from Step 1
All context gathered (issue details, code snippets, constraints)
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:

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:

The decision question
The full set of opening statements from Round 1 (all personas)
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 so, how?
5. State your updated position after considering the others' arguments.

Be direct and create genuine debate. Challenge assumptions. Reference specific points from the other statements. It's OK to disagree strongly. It's also OK to change your mind if convinced.

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

Launch ALL persona sub-agents in a single message for Round 2.

This round should produce genuine tension. If the sub-agents all agree, add a follow-up prompt to one agent asking it to play devil's advocate on the majority position.

Round 3: Convergence

After collecting all Round 2 responses, you (the facilitator, not a sub-agent) synthesize the discussion:

Identify points of agreement across all personas
Highlight unresolved disagreements
Note the key trade-offs that emerged
Extract each persona's final position in one sentence

Step 4: Produce the Decision Analysis

Write a structured analysis in French with the following format:

## Analyse de réunion : [Sujet]

### Question posée
[La question de décision claire]

### Participants
| Persona | Rôle | Position finale |
|---------|------|-----------------|
| ... | ... | ... |

### Synthèse de la discussion

[2-3 paragraphs summarizing the key arguments, tensions, and agreements]

### Recommandation

**Option recommandée :** [The recommended approach]

**Justification :**
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
- [Reason 3]

**Risques identifiés :**
- [Risk 1 + mitigation]
- [Risk 2 + mitigation]

### Alternatives considérées

| Option | Avantages | Inconvénients | Verdict |
|--------|-----------|---------------|---------|
| Option A | ... | ... | Recommandée / Rejetée / À explorer |
| Option B | ... | ... | Recommandée / Rejetée / À explorer |

### Prochaines étapes proposées
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
3. [Step 3]

Step 5: Present and Validate

Present the analysis to the user and ask:

"Voici l'analyse de la réunion. Souhaitez-vous :

Valider cette recommandation et passer à l'implémentation

Approfondir un point spécifique avec une nouvelle discussion

Poster cette analyse sur l'issue [#ID] (si applicable)

Modifier la recommandation"

Do NOT start implementing anything until the user explicitly validates.

Step 6: Post to Issue (If Applicable)

If the subject is linked to a GitLab or GitHub issue and the user asks to post:

Format the analysis for the issue comment (keep the French markdown format)
Add a header: ## Analyse de réunion avec personas IA
Add a footer: ---\n_Analyse générée par simulation de réunion avec personas IA_
Post as a comment on the issue using the appropriate tool:
- GitLab: Use gitlab-mcp(create_issue_note)
- GitHub: Use gh issue comment

Meeting Quality Rules

Persona Authenticity

Each persona speaks consistently with their role and bias
Personas use concrete examples, not abstract platitudes
A security engineer talks about attack vectors, not vague "security concerns"
A product owner talks about user stories and metrics, not code patterns

Debate Quality

At least one persona must disagree with the majority
Arguments must reference specific trade-offs (performance vs. maintainability, speed vs. safety)
Avoid false consensus — if everyone agrees too quickly, introduce a devil's advocate position
Personas can change their mind during the debate if convinced

Analysis Quality

The recommendation must be actionable, not vague
Risks must include mitigation strategies
Next steps must be concrete and ordered
The analysis is written in French (natural, professional, using "nous")

Examples

Example 1: Technical Decision

User: Run a meeting about whether we should use GraphQL or REST for our new API

Meeting would include: Alex (Backend), Sarah (PO), Priya (DevOps), Leo (Frontend)
Decision question: "Devons-nous utiliser GraphQL ou REST pour la nouvelle API ?"

Example 2: Architecture Decision with Issue

User: Run a meeting about issue #234 - migrating from monolith to microservices

Meeting would include: Fatima (Architect), Alex (Backend), Priya (DevOps), Sarah (PO), Yuki (QA)
Decision question: "Comment migrer du monolithe vers des microservices pour le module facturation ?"
Analysis posted to GitLab issue #234 after user validation

Example 3: Product Decision

User: Let's have a meeting about adding real-time notifications to the app

Meeting would include: Sarah (PO), Leo (Frontend), Alex (Backend), Marcus (Security)
Decision question: "Quelle approche adopter pour les notifications temps réel ?"

Important Notes

Never implement before the user validates the recommendation
The meeting is a thinking tool, not a decision-making authority
Keep meetings focused — one decision per meeting
If the subject is too broad, suggest splitting into multiple focused meetings
The analysis is always written in French
Personas speak in English during the meeting for readability, the final analysis is in French
If the user provides additional context during the meeting, adapt the discussion accordingly

meeting-personas