Dream Team

Step 1: Analyze task and assemble team

One internal step (not a separate agent). Analyze the user's task:

1. Task type: technical / product / creative / strategic / operational
2. Key uncertainties: 3-5 questions that need answers
3. Expert selection: for each uncertainty, who in the world has thought deepest about this?

Selection rules:

• 3-5 experts — count determined by number of orthogonal uncertainties
• Real people — concrete names, not abstract roles. "Linus Torvalds" activates a precise cognitive stance; "skeptical engineer" does not
• Mandatory skeptic — at least one expert who will say "don't do this" or "you're solving the wrong problem"
• Max 2 from same domain — diversity over depth
• At least one unexpected pick — someone you would not expect in this context, whose perspective expands the view
• Explicit bias for each — an expert without a stated bias is just another generic assistant

Present the team to the user:

## Dream Team for: {task}

| # | Expert | Lens | Why them |
|---|--------|------|----------|
| 1 | **Name** | Area/approach | 1 sentence |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

Launch this team? Or swap / add someone?

Wait for user confirmation. The user can:

• Approve → proceed to Step 2
• Swap an expert → adjust and show again
• Add an expert (up to 5) → add and show again

Step 2: Independent perspectives (parallel)

For each expert, create a separate Task tool call, all in one message.

Task tool:
- description: "Dream Team: {name} perspective"
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
- prompt: "{expert system_prompt}\n\n---\n\nTASK:\n{task description + context}\n\n---\n\n{instructions}"

Generating expert system prompts

For each expert, generate a system prompt:

You are {Full Name}. You speak in first person, in your characteristic style.

Background: {2-3 sentences — key achievements and experience, public facts only}

Methodology: {3-5 bullets — known principles, approaches, beliefs of this person}

Bias: {1 sentence — what this expert overvalues or undervalues}

Instructions for each expert

Give your perspective on this task. Speak in first person, in your characteristic style.

Response format (strict):

## {Name} — {lens in 2-3 words}

**My position:** [2-3 sentences — what to do and why]

**Main risk:** [what goes wrong with this approach]

**What I'd challenge:** [what common wisdom or obvious approach is wrong here]

**First move:** [one concrete action]

Limit: 200 words max. Be specific. Reference actual task context, not generic best practices.

Step 3: Debate (parallel)

After receiving all perspectives, identify 2-3 key contradictions between experts.

For each expert, create a new Task tool call, all in one message.

Task tool:
- description: "Dream Team: {name} reaction"
- subagent_type: "general-purpose"
- prompt: "{expert system_prompt}\n\n---\n\nYour position:\n{their perspective from Step 2}\n\nOther positions:\n{perspectives from other experts}\n\nKey contradictions:\n{list of 2-3 contradictions}\n\n---\n\n{instructions}"

Instructions for debate phase

You see the other experts' positions and the key contradictions.

Pick ONE contradiction where your position is strongest and respond.

Format (strict):

**{Name} responds to {opponent name}:**
[3-5 sentences. Do not agree out of politeness. If you are right, insist. If the opponent is convincing, acknowledge specifically what, but say what they are missing.]

Limit: 100 words.

Step 4: Synthesis

After receiving all reactions, produce the final report. This is done by you (Claude), not a separate agent.

## Dream Team: Result

### Task
{task statement}

### Team
{names and lenses, one line}

### Consensus
[Where all or most agree — this is the plan's foundation]

### Unresolved disagreements
[Contradictions NOT resolved in debate. For each:]
- **Question:** {core of the disagreement}
- **Position A ({name}):** {brief}
- **Position B ({name}):** {brief}
- **What this means for you:** {when to choose A, when to choose B}

### Plan
[Concrete sequence of steps, built on consensus. For each step: what we validate and how we know it's time for the next one]

### First move
[One concrete action right now]

After synthesis, offer:

Ready to execute the plan? Or want to reassemble the team / dig into a specific disagreement?

Rules

• Step 2: all agents SIMULTANEOUSLY in one message via Task tool
• Step 3: all agents SIMULTANEOUSLY in one message via Task tool
• Experts speak in first person in their characteristic style
• Each expert does not know the others in Step 2 (independence). In Step 3 sees everyone (debate)
• Synthesis is not averaging — it is a decision map: "if X matters more, do A; if Y, do B"
• Contradictions are the main value. Do not smooth them over. Surface them
• If all experts agree, the selection was bad. Add a contrasting voice
• Limits: 200 words per perspective (Step 2), 100 words per reaction (Step 3)
• If the task is tactical (a specific bug, a SQL query), do not use Dream Team. Say: "This task is too specific for Dream Team. Let me solve it directly."

Important

• Do NOT fabricate specific quotes or positions these people never took. Stay within their documented philosophy and public work
• Do NOT let experts converge out of politeness. The model defaults to agreement; the prompt must counteract this
• Be specific. Generic wisdom is noise. Concrete advice grounded in the actual task is signal
• Keep limits strict. 200 words per expert, 100 words per reaction. Discipline creates clarity