roundtable-and-salon
Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user says "roundtable", "salon", "practitioner discussion", "workshop", "peer group", "Chatham House", "bring together a group of [role]". Designs moderated discussions for 15 to 25 practitioners: topic, moderation, ground rules, and the content that comes out of the room. Writes workspace/events/<event>/roundtable-plan.md.
In this repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- artifact-evalSkill
- audience-machineSkill
- conference-activationSkill
- event-and-scale-osSkill
- event-budgetSkill
- event-contentSkill
- event-followupSkill
- event-logisticsSkill
- event-measurementSkill
- event-program-setupSkill
- event-retrospectiveSkill
- event-selectionSkill
- executive-dinnerSkill
- invite-motionSkill
- meeting-engineSkill
- owned-eventSkill
- run-of-showSkill
- speaking-and-stageSkill
- sponsorship-negotiationSkill
- staffing-and-briefingSkill
- venue-selectionSkill
- virtual-eventsSkill
- writing-qualitySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 49
Not an agenda. A path:
- Distinctive: line 64
Get permission on the spot: if something is worth quoting with attribution.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Roundtable & Salon
A moderated discussion among practitioners rather than a dinner among executives. Different room, different value, different rules. It builds technical credibility and champions, and it produces the best content you will get anywhere.
When to use
- You need credibility with the people who evaluate, not the people who sign
- A technical leader is the right host rather than a commercial one
- A topic is genuinely contested and practitioners want to compare notes
- Content is a real objective alongside relationships
Inputs
- Reads:
workspace/audience/target-list.csv,workspace/program/charter.md - Needs from user: the host, the topic, the practitioner audience, whether it is on or off the record, and the venue
Workflow
1. Set the shape
| Element | The answer |
| Size | 15 to 25. Below 12 it is thin, above 25 nobody speaks |
| Room | Round or U-shaped seating. Rows make it a panel |
| Host | Your most credible technical or domain person, not your best salesperson |
| Moderator | Can be the host, better as a separate person. An outside moderator is the strongest option |
| Duration | 90 minutes of discussion, plus arrival and drinks either side |
| Format | Discussion, not presentation. At most one 10-minute framing input |
2. Choose a topic that is genuinely contested
The test: could two smart practitioners in the room disagree about this? If not, it is a briefing and it will be flat.
Good topics have a real tension: build against buy, the thing everyone claims to do that almost nobody does, what a regulator or auditor actually asks for, why the standard approach fails at scale, what separated the projects that survived.
Bad topics: your product category as a subject, "the future of X", anything where the correct answer is obviously your product.
3. Set the ground rules and say them out loud
- Chatham House Rule where candor matters: what is said can be used, who said it cannot. State it at the start, and honor it afterward including in your own content
- No recording, unless everyone agrees in advance and in the room
- No selling. Say it explicitly at the open. It lowers the guard immediately
- Phones down, asked once, gently
Saying these aloud at the start is what produces the candor. People assume the opposite by default.
4. Design the discussion
Not an agenda. A path:
- Opening round. Everyone says their name, role, and one sentence on where they are with the topic. This alone makes the rest work, because everyone has spoken once
- Three to four discussion anchors, sequenced from concrete to contested
- A specific question in reserve for the moment the room goes quiet
- Closing round. One thing each person is taking away. Also the best content capture of the session
Brief the moderator: pull in the quiet ones by name, cut off anyone dominating after their second long turn, and never let it become a two-person debate.
5. Plan the content before the session
The content yield is a real part of the return, and it evaporates without a plan.
- Assign a notetaker who is not the moderator or the host
- Capture themes and quotable formulations rather than a transcript
- Under Chatham House Rule, everything publishes unattributed. Say so in the room so people know what to expect
- Expect two to four assets: a written summary, a set of social posts, and frequently one genuinely good idea that becomes a longer piece
Get permission on the spot if something is worth quoting with attribution. Asking in the room is easy and asking three weeks later is awkward.
6. Follow up as a peer, not a vendor
Within 48 hours: a note from the host with the themes, the notes, and anything promised in the room. No product. The commercial conversation follows separately, from the account owner, a week later, and it references something the person actually said.
7. Make it a series if it works
Practitioner roundtables compound. The same group reconvened quarterly becomes a genuine peer community, and being the convener of that community is worth more than any single session. Ask at the end whether people want the next one, and let them shape the topic.
Output
- Writes:
workspace/events/<event>/roundtable-plan.mdwith the shape, topic, ground rules, discussion path, moderator brief, and content plan - Prints: the discussion path, moderator brief, ground rules script, content capture plan, and the follow-up sequence
Rules & quality bar
- The topic has to be genuinely contested
- Ground rules stated out loud at the open
- Chatham House Rule is honored in your own content, including social
- Opening round always. Everyone speaks in the first ten minutes
- No selling in the room. The commercial follow-up is separate and later
- A notetaker who is not the moderator
- Attribution permission asked in the room, not afterward
- Above 25 people, split it or change the format
Related skills
- Reads:
audience-machine,invite-motion - Pairs with:
event-content(the assets),venue-selection - Feeds:
event-followup
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

